Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: making the PVH 64bit ABI as stableo

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 03.06.15 at 12:02, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> With my x86 maintainer hat on, the following is an absolute minimum set
>> of prerequisite for PVH.
>> 
>> * 32bit support
> 
> Could you please explain why 32bit is important to get PVH out of tech
> preview? I don't see 32 bit OSes as an important use case. Maybe there
> is more behind it that I cannot see.

The primary reason was named before: 32-bit support will likely
end up changing the way 64-bit guests get launched.

>> * AMD support
> 
> Given that it is pretty difficult for any AMD related changes to affect
> the interface, why is this item in the list of things needed to get out
> of experimental?

Because we cannot rule out that adding SVM support may require
interface changes. And even if we promoted it to tech preview,
the interface would still not be frozen.

Apart from that (and I also said so on the hackathon session, just
like you considering to rip the whole thing out if it doesn't make
any progress) already during initial patch review I was hesitant to
accept changes with so many loose ends; I accepted them on the
basis that they would get dealt with in a timely manner, which
didn't happen, and which leaves us in this sad, half working (or
should I say half broken) state.

Jan


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