Re: [Xen-devel] [libvirt] Opinions on removing the old, legacy libvirt Xen driver

[Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I briefly mentioned this at an evening event during the KVM Forum / Xen Dev
> Summit, but the list is certainly a better place to discuss such a topic.
> What do folks think about finally removing the old, legacy, xend-based
> driver from the libvirt sources?
>
> The Xen community made xl/libxl the primary toolstack in Xen 4.1. In Xen
> 4.2, it was made the default toolstack. In Xen 4.5, xm/xend was completely
> removed from the Xen source tree. According to the Xen release support
> matrix [0], upstream maintenance of Xen 4.1-4.3 has been dropped for some
> time, including "long term" security support. Xen 4.4-4.5 no longer receive
> regular maintenance support, with security support ending in March for 4.4
> and January 2018 for 4.5. In short, the fully maintained upstream Xen
> releases don't even contain xm/xend :-).
>
> As for downstreams, I doubt anyone is interested in running the last several
> libvirt releases on an old Xen installition with xm/xend, let alone
> libvirt.git master. SUSE, which still supports Xen, has no interest in using
> a new libvirt on older (but still supported) SLES that uses the xm/xend
> toolstack. I struggle to find a good reason to keep any of the old cruft
> under src/xen/. I do think we should keep the xm/sexpr config
> parsing/formatting code src/xenconfig/ since it is useful for converting old
> xm and sexpr config to libvirt domXML.
>
> Thanks for opinions and comments!
>
> Regards,
> Jim
>
> [0] https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Release_Features
>

For what it's worth, I totally agree with this proposal, as it will
make it less confusing to identify what you actually need for
Xen-based virtualization.

As an aside, I recently attempted to set up a Xen based system using
libvirt on Fedora, and I was initially confused by the two drivers,
and completely messed up my setup because of it. I think simply from a
usability point of view, it makes a lot of sense to eliminate the old
code and set up the libxl driver to be the "successor" of the old xen
driver.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

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