RE: [Xen-devel] separate domain info and vcpu context

To:	"Kip Macy" <kip.macy@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	RE: [Xen-devel] separate domain info and vcpu context
From:	"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:41:01 +0100
Delivery-date:	Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:40:40 +0000
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcVM53JcJABG+P/eQju/z6NfaGbAJQAZxxWA
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] separate domain info and vcpu context

 

> Might it make sense to to add a separate hypercall for 
> getting a vcpu's context?  It would be cleaner from my 
> standpoint to have exec_domain be an OUT variable that 
> indicates the number of vcpus in use. It seems a bit odd 
> getting generic info for a domain and then specific context 
> for one of the vcpus.

I guess it might make sense to split the hypercall in two, as there are
several cases where we we don't ask for the VCPU info.

I would like both calls to return the number of VCPUs in use, but we
still want the 'give me VCPU x or the next active one if it doesn't
exist' enumeration scheme since VCPUs can potentially be sparse. Go for
it!

Cheers,
Ian  

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel