Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-16 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 17/11/2016 00:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> When we want to enable ACPI vcpu hotplug for HVM guests, What do you mean by "when"? We *are* doing ACPI hotplug for HVM guests, aren't we? >>> Are we? If so, how? >>> >>> I don't see any toolstack or qemu code able to cope with APCI CPU

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-16 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
> > When we want to enable ACPI vcpu hotplug for HVM guests, >>> What do you mean by "when"? We *are* doing ACPI hotplug for HVM guests, >>> aren't we? >> Are we? If so, how? >> >> I don't see any toolstack or qemu code able to cope with APCI CPU >> hotplug. I can definitely see ACPI PCI

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-16 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 15.11.16 at 20:19, wrote: > On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: >>> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better? As that's a

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-15 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 11/15/2016 03:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 15/11/16 19:38, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-15 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 15/11/16 19:38, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 11/15/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-15 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 11/15/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: >>> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better? As that's a little too wide (and

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-15 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 15/11/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better? >>> As that's a little too wide (and I think someone else had also >>> disliked it for

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-15 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 15.11.16 at 16:44, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better? >> As that's a little too wide (and I think someone else had also >> disliked it for that reason), how about XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI_FF

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-15 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 11/15/2016 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> The other option was XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI. Would it be better? > As that's a little too wide (and I think someone else had also > disliked it for that reason), how about XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI_FF > (for "fixed features"), or if that's still too wide, break

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-15 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 15.11.16 at 15:55, wrote: > On 11/15/2016 04:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c >>> @@ -1383,6 +1383,78 @@ static int

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-15 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 11/15/2016 04:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c >> @@ -1383,6 +1383,78 @@ static int hvm_access_cf8(static int acpi_ioaccess( >> int dir, unsigned int port, unsigned

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-15 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 09.11.16 at 15:39, wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c > @@ -1383,6 +1383,78 @@ static int hvm_access_cf8(static int acpi_ioaccess( > int dir, unsigned int port, unsigned int bytes, uint32_t *val) > { > +unsigned

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-11 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 09:39:56AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky > --- > CC: Paul Durrant > --- > Changes in v2: > * Use 'true/false' values for bools > > > xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c | 72 >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-09 Thread Paul Durrant
> -Original Message- > From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrov...@oracle.com] > Sent: 09 November 2016 14:40 > To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Cc: jbeul...@suse.com; Andrew Cooper ; > Wei Liu ; Ian Jackson ; Roger >

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

2016-11-09 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky --- CC: Paul Durrant --- Changes in v2: * Use 'true/false' values for bools xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c | 72 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+) diff --git