Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] Protection key support for PV domains - Isaku Yamahata - com.xensource.lists.xen-ia64-devel

16 messages in com.xensource.lists.xen-ia64-develRe: [Xen-ia64-devel] Protection key s...

From	Sent On	Attachments
Dietmar Hahn	11 Jul 2007 06:51	.patch, .patch
Dietmar Hahn	11 Jul 2007 07:01
Isaku Yamahata	12 Jul 2007 21:10
Tristan Gingold	12 Jul 2007 22:55
Dietmar Hahn	13 Jul 2007 01:03
Dietmar Hahn	13 Jul 2007 01:35
Dietmar Hahn	13 Jul 2007 02:30
tgin...@free.fr	13 Jul 2007 05:12
tgin...@free.fr	13 Jul 2007 05:13
Dietmar Hahn	15 Jul 2007 23:02	.patch
Dietmar Hahn	17 Jul 2007 05:41	.patch
Dietmar Hahn	20 Jul 2007 06:21
Isaku Yamahata	22 Jul 2007 19:39
Dietmar Hahn	23 Jul 2007 05:08
Isaku Yamahata	23 Jul 2007 07:42
Dietmar Hahn	23 Jul 2007 23:49

Subject:	Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] Protection key support for PV domains
From:	Isaku Yamahata (yama...@valinux.co.jp)
Date:	07/22/2007 07:39:37 PM
List:	com.xensource.lists.xen-ia64-devel

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 03:21:56PM +0200, Dietmar Hahn wrote:

Hi,

Hi.

Can I replace pkrs[8];tmp[8]; with pkrs[16] to use this for protection keys or should I expand pkrs and leave tmp[8] untouched. How about changing the layout - is this possible here?

Given that xen/ia64 haven't keep the ABI compatibility (Yes, we have changed the layout sometimes breaking the compatigbility), it would be acceptable to change the layout, I suppose.

In addition I would use a define for the number of pkrs. The only way to get this is define it in arch-ia64.h for use from vmm and domU. Is this OK or is there another solution possible?

Probably it would be OK because I don't suppose that the number will be increased so frequently. Correct?

Btw. I'll use Isaku's suggestion and will add a new hypercall to let vmm setup the cpu-pkrs with the values the domU changed.

Please note that I only read your patch and I haven't even tested your patch. I'm not sure how you use pkrs. The design decision should depend on its usage model.