Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/11] Alternate p2m: support multiple copies of host p2m

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

At 19:33 +0100 on 16 Jan (1421433186), Tim Deegan wrote:
> > > - Feature compatibilty/completeness.  You pointed out yourself that
> > >   it doesn't work with nested HVM or migration.  I think I'd have to
> > >   add mem_event/access/paging and PCI passthrough to the list of
> > >   features that ought to still work.  I'm resigned to the idea that
> > >   many new features don't work with shadow pagetables. :)
> > > 
> > 
> > The intention is that mem_event/access should still work. I haven't
> > specifically looked at paging, but I don't see any fundamental reason
> > why it shouldn't. PCI passthrough I suspect won't. Does nested HVM
> > work with migration? Is it simply not acceptable to submit a feature
> > as experimental, with known compatibility issues? I had assumed that
> > it was, based on the nested HVM status as documented in the release
> > notes.
> 
> Potentially, yes, if we have reasonable confidence that you (or
> someone else) will work towards fixing those things.  If you can't
> make promises yourself, perhaps you can talk to someone who can.

It occurs to me that I should make the distinction between migration
and passthrough, which are first-class features, and the others, which
are 'preview'.  So migration and passthrough are hard requirements,
and the others should have a bit more room for negotiation.

Our process around all this is far from clear, which I can see must be
frustrating to work with.  I wonder whether we can make some clearer
guidelines.

Tim.


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