Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] remove xend for 4.5 (Was: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Exclude xend from toolstack maintainers entry)

[Fabio Fantoni <fabio.fantoni@xxxxxxx>]

Il 31/03/2014 15:17, George Dunlap ha scritto:
> On 03/31/2014 01:16 PM, Matt Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 01:03:25PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 03/31/2014 12:56 PM, Matt Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:18:53PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 13:09 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > > I don't really like adding more of 'xend has this' to the list,
> > > > > that's ok.
> > > > >
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > Jan discovered that 'xend' was using the group assigment 
> > > > > > hypercall for
> > > > > > PCI devices while 'xl' is not doing that.
> > > > > > That hypercall has certain benefits - you can use it to figure 
> > > > > > out if
> > > > > > all of the PCI devices underneath a bridge are assigned to one
> > > > > > guest and not shared amongts the guests.
> > > > > I think this is at the wishlist rather than blocker end of the 
> > > > > spectrum,
> > > > > and probably falls under the general category of "xl pci 
> > > > > passthrough has
> > > > > sharp edges"? Does that sound right?
> > > > Probably. There are other areas that are mightily sharp as well. They
> > > > might not be blockers for the project to remove Xend code from the
> > > > tree, but they'll be blockers for adoption of newer releases that
> > > > don't include Xend.
> > > >
> > > > Another for the list is AER handling. That's only implemented in Xend
> > > > now [1].
> > > Well, given that AER was not mentioned 6 months ago when this came
> > > up, it seems that keeping xend in tree is a blocker for people
> > > actually asking for things to be added to xl.
> > Actually, we discussed it on the phone [1]. Unfortunately I didn't
> > complete my assigned action item to post on the list.
> Ah, right. :-)
>
> In any case, the relevant question isn't so much "Is this a blocker 
> for xend removal", so much as "Is xl support for this a blocker for 
> the 4.5 release?"
There is another thing to do in libxl to solve the problem of network 
not working after restore.
Actually the only workaround is to assign fixed mac address in xl cfg.
I reported this during 4.2 development but it was too late to "fix" it 
if I remember good.
Thanks for any reply.

>  -George
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel