From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <JGross@suse.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
Xen-devel List <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@citrix.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@cs.ubc.ca>,
Hongyang Yang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [Planning for Xen-4.6] Migration v2
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 08:46:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1417077996.2372.5.camel@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54761040.9060402@citrix.com>
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 17:39 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > IMHO this is fine. It essentially means that for xl users there is some
> > delayed gratification wrt the promise of migration between non-alike
> > dom0s. The migration from 4.5(legacy)->4.6(v2) won't support such
> > migrations, but the next step from 4.6(v2)->4.7(v2) will.
>
> Two options exist.
>
> 1) Assume that the sending bitness is the same as the receiving
> bitness. This is already the status quo, and will require that the two
> dom0s are the same width.
As I said above I think this is absolutely acceptable as a transitional
step.
> 2) Allow the administrator to specify the bitness of the sending side.
> In this case, xl 4.5(legacy)->4.6(v2) works even cross-bitness.
If this is trivial to plumb in and you are motivated to do so then this
seems like a reasonable enough "stretch goal".
Ian.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-27 8:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-25 19:54 [Planning for Xen-4.6] Migration v2 Andrew Cooper
2014-11-26 8:09 ` Olaf Hering
2014-11-26 13:17 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-11-26 14:53 ` Olaf Hering
2014-11-26 16:44 ` Ian Campbell
2014-11-26 17:22 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-11-26 16:50 ` Ian Campbell
2014-11-26 17:39 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-11-27 8:46 ` Ian Campbell [this message]
2014-11-27 8:33 ` Hongyang Yang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1417077996.2372.5.camel@citrix.com \
--to=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=JGross@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=ross.lagerwall@citrix.com \
--cc=rshriram@cs.ubc.ca \
--cc=tim@xen.org \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
--cc=yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.