From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Xen hvm saving improvements
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:32:35 +0000
Message-ID: <52AED6C3.2050308@eu.citrix.com>
References: <1387160259-9638-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1387187061.20076.30.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1387187061.20076.30.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 12/16/2013 09:44 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 02:17 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> This series is *very* RFC at the moment - it is only compile tested.  I would
>> very much appreciate review on the design. (and I shall see about sorting out
>> some dev testing tomorrow)
>>
>> The ultimate purpose is to fix that the fact that
>> XEN_DOMCTL_gethvmcontext_partial is very unreliable at providing the correct
>> subset of information.
>>
>> All the changes are supposed to be internal to Xen.  There should be no
>> difference at all to the result of XEN_DOMCTL_gethvmcontext (which can be used
>> as a useful dev test for the validity of the changes).
>>
>> George: As for whether this is intended for 4.5, I have no idea.  On the one
>> hand, it is fixing a hypercall which doesn't function correctly, but on the
>> other hand, it is a very large and complicated set of changes relevant to
>> migration.  Then again, the majority of the changes were largely mechanical,
>> and there is a simple test to prove whether there are bugs or not.  I shall
>> defer to others for comments on the risk/rewards of this series.
> IMHO this is obviously not 4.4 material at this stage. Apart from
> anything else we've been managing to release with these short comings
> for many years.

Indeed.

  -George