Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Zachary Amsden wrote: >> We don't need such a structure at all, and if you think really hard >> about it, Xen really doesn't either. Why does the domain builder >> need to know the hypercall page from a static string in the kernel? >> That seems completely backwards. Shouldn't the hypervisor be telling >> the guest about the hypercall page, not the other way around? > > Don't see why. There are definite benefits to having the hypercall > page at a fixed address within the kernel, so you can just use an > absolute call/jmp into it. We support absolute calls/jmps with our layer to addresses that can't be determined at link time. You could do the same. > Also, because Xen supports more operating systems than just Linux, it > would be helpful to us to not have a proliferation of OS-specific > startup mechanisms. That's by the by; if a Linux-specific entry would > really help clean things up/simplify things, then that's OK, but I > wouldn't want to introduce difference for the sake of it. Using an ELF field for the relocated kernel virtual base instead of (or, in addition to) embedding it in the string table is the only thing I strongly object to.
