On 7/15/20 4:49 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:52:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/2/20 2:21 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
>>> +
>>> +bool xen_is_xen_suspend(void)
>>
>> Weren't you going to call this pv suspend? (And also --- is this suspend
>> or hibernation? Your commit messages and cover letter talk about fixing
>> hibernation).
>>
>>
> This is for hibernation is for pvhvm/hvm/pv-on-hvm guests as you may call it.
> The method is just there to check if "xen suspend" is in progress.
> I do not see "xen_suspend" differentiating between pv or hvm
> domain until later in the code hence, I abstracted it to xen_is_xen_suspend.
I meant "pv suspend" in the sense that this is paravirtual suspend, not
suspend for paravirtual guests. Just like pv drivers are for both pv and
hvm guests.
And then --- should it be pv suspend or pv hibernation?
>>> +{
>>> + return suspend_mode == XEN_SUSPEND;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> +static int xen_setup_pm_notifier(void)
>> +{
>> + if (!xen_hvm_domain())
>> + return -ENODEV;
>>
>> I forgot --- what did we decide about non-x86 (i.e. ARM)?
> It would be great to support that however, its out of
> scope for this patch set.
> I’ll be happy to discuss it separately.
I wasn't implying that this *should* work on ARM but rather whether this
will break ARM somehow (because xen_hvm_domain() is true there).
>>
>> And PVH dom0.
> That's another good use case to make it work with however, I still
> think that should be tested/worked upon separately as the feature itself
> (PVH Dom0) is very new.
Same question here --- will this break PVH dom0?
-boris
