On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 11:46 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > On 28/06/2011 02:51, "Mukesh Rathor" <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >> To be clear, you intend for this to work with unmodified PV guests,
> > >> right? All of this translation can easily be done in Xen, avoiding
> > >> multiple paths needed in the guest kernel (not really tenable for
> > >> upstreaming).
> > >>
> > >> -- Keir
> > >
> > > Hi Keir,
> > >
> > > Actually, I modified the PVops guest. The changes in the pvops are
> > > minimal and mostly confied to xen specific files. So I think it has
> > > a fair shot of being upstreamed, at least, worth a shot. I will run
> > > them by Jeremy/Konrad and get their opinions.
> >
> > Well, maybe. But we now have HVM guests, PV guests, and PV-HVM guests. I'm
> > not sure that adding explicitly HVM-PV guests as well isn't just a bloody
> > mess.
>
> I very much agree on this point.
>
> However it could still be useful at the very least to run a 64-bit hvm
> dom0 (assuming there is a significant performance improvement in doing
> so, compared to a traditional 64-bit dom0).
That case is no different to the guest case in this respect, so we
should still be aiming for not needing to modify the kernel. We
certainly don't want to a new special case HVM-PV for dom0 only!
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home