Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] Meeting Summary taken from Xen-ia64 Next Steps Discussion during Xen Summit

[Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 22:13 -0800, Yang, Fred wrote:

> 1. Physical Memory support for Domain0
>      * PPC port has the similar P2M issue as Xen-ia64
>      * Group agreed P2M is the route to take, the detail implementation
> can be between P2M & VP approaches to change XenLinux as  less as
> possible

   I thought I remember hearing that VP was the goal, but P2M has many
similarities with VP.  I know Dan briefly mentioned this in the BOF, but
we stuck with the P2M notation, presumably because of lack of time.  Can
anyone explain how we jumped back to P2M when it seemed clear after the
ia64 session that both PPC and ia64 were headed towards VP?

>      * To merge P2M into mainline code may cause Xen-ia64-unstable to be
> buggy or unstable for a period of time.
>         Since this is a must feature to go, we should merge the code and
> get community to work together to get system stablized

   I think there needs to be some qualification here.  There are likely
to be bugs and regressions (hopefully few), but we need to ensure some
significant degree of functionality is retained before integrating into
the mainline.  The memory model support is critical for development to
continue, so it's certainly a very high priority for inclusion.

   Thanks for the summary Fred.  It was a pleasure to get to meet
everyone and put faces with names.  Thanks,

        Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel