On 20/08/14 17:31, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:31:54 am Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I don't think using the same IDT vector is the right approach, I would >> just pick a different IDT vector and use that for Hyper-V. Using the >> same IDT vector (like your suggestion above) would prevent shipping a >> kernel with with both Hyper-V and Xen support (like it's done now in >> GENERIC). >> >> Roger. > > Hmm, can't you make this a runtime check to only call setidt() if you detect > you are under the appropriate hypervisor? > > Also, bhyve currently has a hackish way of requesting a free IDT slot. > Perhaps it would be best if I added little API to reserve an IDT slot > assuming > that callers could accept a dynamic IDT vector rather than a static one.
That would work for Xen. The IDT vector doesn't need to be fixed since it's registered with Xen when the system boots. Roger. _______________________________________________ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
