Re: Xen 4.16 development update - tree status

[Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Xen 4.16 development update - tree status"):
> On 19/11/2021 15:15, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Open issues and potential blockers
> > ==================================

Thanks, Andrew, for this helpful information.

> > I am aware of three issues for which I don't know the current
> > disposition:
> >
> > * "x86/IOMMU: enabled / intremap handling"
> >   3/3 "AMD/IOMMU: iommu_enable vs iommu_intremap"
> >   Last I heard this was being reworked.
> 
> Some of this has been committed, and has fixed the regression I reported.
> 
> One part is quite risky, and not a regression fix (Xen has been broken
> for years and years here).  I suggest deferring that part to 4.17.

Right.  That's 3/.  1/ and 2/ have been committed already.

> > * I have a note "HPET regression".  There have been number of patches in
> >   this area.  Most recently,
> >   "x86/hpet: setup HPET even when disabled due to stopping in deep C states"
> 
> This regression has been fixed too.  The bugfix got in ahead of RC1.

Oh, good, thanks.

> > * "x86/viridian: EOI MSR should always happen in affected vCPU context"
> >   Jan mentioned this on IRC but I don't see any discussion of it in
> >   my mailbox.
> >
> > The last two were mentioned in my last release update, but I don't
> > seem to find any definitive conclusion.  x86 maintainers, can you
> > please confirm ?
> 
> There is not consensus on whether the change is correct, although I
> admit it had fallen off my radar.
> 
> All it is doing is introducing two ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()'s.  It's not
> critical for 4.16 at this point.

OK, thanks for the information.  It sounds like this might be debated.
So if anyone disagrees, and thinks I ought to have this on my 4.16
radar, please let me know.

Meanwhile I just committed the EFI alignment fix, which was the one
other outstanding item.  It's too quiet.  I'm expecting a monster to
jump out at any moment...

Ian.