| Message ID | d09b0690-c5e0-a90b-b4c0-4396a5f62c59@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | x86: shim building adjustments (plus shadow follow-on) | expand |
Tim, On 19.10.2020 10:42, Jan Beulich wrote: > The change addressing the shadow related build issue noticed by > Andrew went in already. The build breakage goes beyond this > specific combination though - PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE plus HVM is > similarly an issue. This is what the 1st patch tries to take care > of, in a shape already on irc noticed to be controversial. I'm > submitting the change nevertheless because for the moment there > looks to be a majority in favor of going this route. One argument > not voiced there yet: What good does it do to allow a user to > enable HVM when then on the resulting hypervisor they still can't > run HVM guests (for the hypervisor still being a dedicated PV > shim one). On top of this, the alternative approach is likely > going to get ugly. > > The shadow related adjustments are here merely because the want > to make them was noticed in the context of the patch which has > already gone in. > > 1: don't permit HVM and PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE at the same time > 2: refactor shadow_vram_{get,put}_l1e() > 3: sh_{make,destroy}_monitor_table() are "even more" HVM-only unless you tell me otherwise I'm intending to commit the latter two with Roger's acks some time next week. Of course it would still be nice to know your view on the first of the TBDs in patch 3 (which may result in further changes, in a follow-up). Jan
At 14:40 +0100 on 29 Oct (1603982415), Jan Beulich wrote: > Tim, > > unless you tell me otherwise I'm intending to commit the latter > two with Roger's acks some time next week. Of course it would > still be nice to know your view on the first of the TBDs in > patch 3 (which may result in further changes, in a follow-up). Ack, sorry for the dropped patches, and thank you for the ping. I've now replied to everything that I think is wating for my review. Cheers, Tim.
The change addressing the shadow related build issue noticed by Andrew went in already. The build breakage goes beyond this specific combination though - PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE plus HVM is similarly an issue. This is what the 1st patch tries to take care of, in a shape already on irc noticed to be controversial. I'm submitting the change nevertheless because for the moment there looks to be a majority in favor of going this route. One argument not voiced there yet: What good does it do to allow a user to enable HVM when then on the resulting hypervisor they still can't run HVM guests (for the hypervisor still being a dedicated PV shim one). On top of this, the alternative approach is likely going to get ugly. The shadow related adjustments are here merely because the want to make them was noticed in the context of the patch which has already gone in. 1: don't permit HVM and PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE at the same time 2: refactor shadow_vram_{get,put}_l1e() 3: sh_{make,destroy}_monitor_table() are "even more" HVM-only Jan