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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
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 :-(.
Regards,
Jim
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
