Nakajima, Jun wrote: > Today, 3 CPUID leaves starting from 0x4000_0000 are defined in a generic > fashion (hypervisor detection, version, and hypercall page), and those > are the ones used by Xen today. We should extend those leaves (e.g. > starting from 0x4000_0003) for the vmm-independent features as well. > > If Xen needs additional Xen-specific features, we need to allocate some > leaves for those (e.g. 0x4000_1000) But the signature is "XenVMMXenVMM", which isn't very generic. If we're presenting a generic interface, it needs to have a generic signature, otherwise guests will need to have a list of all hypervisor signatures supporting their interface. Since 0x40000000 has already been established as the base leaf of the hypervisor-specific interfaces, the generic interface will have to be elsewhere. J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: "Nakajima, Jun" <[email protected]>
- RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- References:
- [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>
- RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: "Nakajima, Jun" <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: "Nakajima, Jun" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] State limits to safety of _safe iterators
- Next by Date: Re: [00/41] Large Blocksize Support V7 (adds memmap support)
- Previous by thread: RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- Next by thread: RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- Index(es):