Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] hvm-stub for ia64

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22/11/07 09:31, "tgingold@xxxxxxx" <tgingold@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Does the hvmstub have to look different to an hvm guest from the p.o.v. of
>> the tools? It's rather a shame to introduce a third kind of domain at that
>> level.
> There are of course differences: qemu shouldn't be started.  And the builder
> C function is different.  I can try to merge with the hvm builder function
> but I am not sure it is worth.  The amount of new code is still rather small
> for tools.

Presumably the old HVM builder for ia64 becomes dead code though? So really
this is the 'new' hvm building path. Do you need to support the old way (on
ia64) if this is checked in?

>> How do you think this appraoch compares with a separate stub domain per HVM
>> guest? That's the approach being developed on the x86 side, but it would be
>> nice to not increase divergence between x86 and ia64.
> I think my approach is much more simpler.  Just look at the amount of new code
> for hypervisor and tools: very small.

I doubt the magnitude of changes in tools/hypervisor is different between
the two approaches. It might even be smaller in the separate domain
approach.

 -- Keir



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