On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 03:13:30PM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
On 10/2/18 4:50 PM, Jim Fehlig wrote:
On 9/30/18 8:15 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
Since this is something between PV and HVM, it makes sense to put the setting in place where domain type is specified. To enable it, use <os><type machine="xenpvh">...</type></os>. It is also included in capabilities.xml, for every supported HVM guest type - it doesn't seems to be any other requirement (besides new enough Xen).
Signed-off-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com> --- Changes in v2 proposed by Jim: - use new_arch_added var instead of i == nr_guest_archs for clarity - improve comment - adjust for now required Xen >= 4.6 (remove part for Xen < 4.5)
Changes in v3: - limit VIR_DOMAIN_OSTYPE_XEN -> VIR_DOMAIN_OSTYPE_LINUX conversion to Xen PV only - do not accept VIR_DOMAIN_OSTYPE_LINUX for PVH - fix reported capabilities for PVH - remove hostdev passthrough and video/graphics
No video, graphics or hostdev passthrough - bummer. Begs the question: what to do with PVH XML config containing these devices? Reject it? Silently ignore? I'll also need to remember to enable these as PVH gains support for the devices.
- use #ifdef LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PVH instead of hypervisor version to check for PVH support
This is a much better approach than the version check. I should have thought of that earlier, sorry.
Actually it is not. LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PVH is a value in the enum libxl_domain_type. Too bad PVH support isn't advertised in libxl.h with something like LIBXL_HAVE_PVH. Looks like we are stuck with the version check :-(.
Hmm, but that version check is a runtime check. How to fix compile error regarding missing LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_PVH then? Let configure check that and define some HAVE_xxx? -- Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki Invisible Things Lab A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?