Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 00/10] toolstack-based approach to pvhvm guest kexec

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:41 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > I.e. what you currently implement is David's model without Konrad's
> > later alternative really having been explored? Iiuc David's main
> > reservation (which I share) was against a myriad of reset-this and
> > reset-that hypercalls, which Konrad's reset-everything would
> > address equally well.

FWIW it seems to me that David's suggestion without Konrad's
modification is the simplest and least fragile approach. Is there some
impetus to prefer a reset-all hypercall?

[...]
> The approach used in this series is not significantly different from how
> an HVM domain is doing normal reboot: we destroy the original domain and
> create a new one instead of cleaning up the original one (as it looks
> safer and much easier I suppose).

Right, that was my first thought too.

Ian.


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