On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 03:07:07PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
Fixed in the sense of static.
Well, you can't use "fixed" to say "static" when former means something
very specific already in MTRR land.
Wouldn't !cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR) be enough?
I'm not sure we won't need that for TDX guests, too.
See, that's the problem. I wanna have it simple too. Lemme check with
dhansen.
Yes, it is only relevant for PV dom0.
Right, I was asking whether "PV dom0" == X86_FEATURE_XENPV?
:)
The number of fixed MTRRs is not dynamic AFAIK.
But nothing guarantees that the caller would pass an array "mtrr_type
*fixed" of size MTRR_NUM_FIXED_RANGES, right?
A single interface makes it easier to avoid multiple calls.
In the end I'm fine with either way.
Yeah, I know. Question is, how much of this functionality will be
needed/used so that we can go all out on the interface design or we can
do a single one and forget about it...
Can Xen use x86_hyper_type() too?
It does.
Then pls add a x86_hyper_type check too to make sure a potential move of
this call is caught in the future.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature