Re: RFC: making the PVH 64bit ABI as stableo

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>]

On 06/05/2015 12:21 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> El 03/06/15 a les 14.08, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
>>>>>> On 03.06.15 at 12:02, <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> With my x86 maintainer hat on, the following is an absolute minimum set
>>>>> of prerequisite for PVH.
>>>>>
>>>>> * 32bit support
>>>> Could you please explain why 32bit is important to get PVH out of tech
>>>> preview? I don't see 32 bit OSes as an important use case. Maybe there
>>>> is more behind it that I cannot see.
>>> The primary reason was named before: 32-bit support will likely
>>> end up changing the way 64-bit guests get launched.
>> I can work on the new boot ABI, even if it's just a design document now,
>> but the actual implementation needs to be done on top of the 32-bit
>> support series.
>>
>> Boris, do you think you could send an early RFC of your 32-bit support
>> series in a couple of weeks at most?
> Besides these, we still don't have any timelines for AMD support, and
> nobody stepping up to fix any remaining /* TODO pvh fixme */ in the code
> afterwards.

Most of "fixme"s should be taken care of as part of 32-bit and AMD support.

I will look at whatever is left (some of them IIRC are related to 
migration and it sounds like those don't *have* to be fixed right away).

-boris

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel