From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Expose hypervisor's PVH support via xen_caps Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:20:59 +0100 Message-ID: <537F675B.8080603@citrix.com> References: <1400856933-1424-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> <537F6287.5070705@citrix.com> <537F6471.40000@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <537F6471.40000@oracle.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Boris Ostrovsky Cc: Tim Deegan , keir@xen.org, jbeulich@suse.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 23/05/14 16:08, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 05/23/2014 11:00 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 23/05/14 15:55, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky >>> --- >>> xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> If the plan is to try and PVH and HVM back into one mode as far as Xen >> is concerned, doesn't this become redundant? > > Yes, I was thinking about this but we currently don't have (or, > rather, I can't think of) a good way to determine whether we can start > a PVH guest. We can grep the log but that doesn't feel like a > particularly good solution. > > One option could be to postpone this patch until 4.5 freezes and see > whether we indeed followed up on the plan and if we didn't then > integrate it. > > -boris My concern here is that if this patch gets accepted, it will have to say forever more as the cap strings are a very public API. ~Andrew