Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] SUPPORT.md: add Domain 0 section

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/23/2018 10:27 AM, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  SUPPORT.md | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md
> index ddcdfab5ad..fb0151aa7b 100644
> --- a/SUPPORT.md
> +++ b/SUPPORT.md
> @@ -96,6 +96,30 @@ Requires hardware virtualisation support (Intel VMX / AMD 
> SVM)
>  
>  ARM only has one guest type at the moment
>  
> +## Domain 0 Type
> +
> +### x86/PV Dom0
> +
> +    Status: Supported
> +
> +Traditional Xen PV Domain 0
> +
> +No hardware requirements
> +
> +### x86/PVH Dom0
> +
> +    Status: Experimental
> +
> +PVH based Domain 0
> +
> +Requires CPU hardware virtualization extensions and an IOMMU.
> +
> +### ARM Dom0
> +
> +    Status: Supported
> +
> +ARM only has one Domain 0 type at the moment
> +

There's a lot of redundancy here.  What about keeping the guest types
together, like the following?

---
### x86/PVH

    Status, domU: Supported
    Status, dom0: Experimental

[description]

Note also that dom0 support requires IOMMU or VT-d hardware.
---

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel