[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Support of old Xen versions in the Linux kernel
- To: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:33:25 -0400
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oracle.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=oracle.com; dkim=pass header.d=oracle.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=rSIENCFULaZ33oR3BUSZ4yKJ6d9Ag01uc49jK4wp90s=; b=UqG6CURv/Nl+pYxnjWqGfY3THJsV6bR8mXP0loBoZTUHTjBuXdRALwGGy6OqMLlTIRkH/qYkIA6uctszIyTX4qqcAlmP5XZGjqGctPP9VZbPOYfTjYn/08u9R8BpM3shKvP1q9XuxpESqBVfUpLFPSk71lL2V1xFF1nLUHTy0H56o5C4aepRr84xw+okQSUWn71NxGhW/0ljpwmGXcWiXi67a7onpmL5pHIMXyhejH/bp8nraUMs/jgNAZlQ6+kmB9hXOQIW5sJWZ6RFJyLX/tO/8LfnCnNlJrJXZ+2S01xMsgGdfM2RN+L9ogFg+bLqNiz7QkXeyETcrJ47RVBlXw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=WkP5IxYkTMJeJsCSqYsx4PO/SaUi8vX9siFtJYVqaylN1d3BzKjXtq68iYSnUSCq0dhQHhaRE9PF2VjhXX7lUYVrDg52XxGC9jGuB2Jb1drpSLtpMxtU9yIF53N0oxsl3wsDMoFynggNIc9d9Nbu6OMLBwuhwVL3OIsG80Dgl1GeTY5afvaBDUjJDyZ+HP5aHF10sNiY8nP4KO822P1kWRPwHrIxNfgUCHYyUaTkjvPNOjQQcvsPd8K7pXkL77Mbu0Lym0vI7nXz7M0R2k5IWUDws8MXinUmQb0j3ayJKOJRyDba+z07MAZ+JDW6lb51x3JFko8Ip2eNJ+LE8nB4Tw==
- Authentication-results: kernel.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;kernel.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=oracle.com;
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:33:38 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 4/13/21 2:14 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> In x86 kernel development the question came up whether we need to
> support XENFEAT_gnttab_map_avail_bits not being set when running as a PV
> guest.
>
> This feature is active for PV guests since Xen 3.4.
>
> So the basic question is: which is the oldest version of Xen we want to
> support in the Linux kernel? As far as I know there is no Xen based
> product in productive use with Xen older than 4.2.
>
> Would we be fine to drop support for older versions (feel free to
> suggest other versions than 4.2 as the first to be supported Xen
> version)?
>
> In case the answer is yes, I'd post some patches to clean up the kernel,
> including a safety net to bail out in case a feature needed isn't
> available.
>
Sounds good to me.
-boris
|
