From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@XenSource.com>
Subject: Re: supervisory_mode_kernel
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:01:20 +0000
Message-ID: <1163602880.16115.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <4559E1D2.E57C.0030.0@novell.com>
	<1163584366.9325.28.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<455AD3FA.E57C.0030.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <455AD3FA.E57C.0030.0@novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@novell.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 07:52 -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
> Sorry for asking an imprecise question. I understand the mechanism for turning
> on this flag. What was not clear to me was when we would turn this on. 

Probably never.

It was mainly intended as a proof of concept. There once was an idea
that it might be possible run a Xen/linux kernel+a thin shim on bare
metal with negligible loss of performance. With the paravirt ops
approach being taken with the upstreaming work there is little point in
that anymore.

Ian.