Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] toolstack-based approach to pvhvm guest kexec

[Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>]

Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> writes:

> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:41 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> > I.e. what you currently implement is David's model without Konrad's
>> > later alternative really having been explored? Iiuc David's main
>> > reservation (which I share) was against a myriad of reset-this and
>> > reset-that hypercalls, which Konrad's reset-everything would
>> > address equally well.
>
> FWIW it seems to me that David's suggestion without Konrad's
> modification is the simplest and least fragile approach. Is there some
> impetus to prefer a reset-all hypercall?
>

I'm actually doing a 'proof-of-concept' for the 'reset-all' solution, I
hope to send it out this week. Personally, I think that the
'toolstack-based approach' would be less fragile and easier to support.

> [...]
>> The approach used in this series is not significantly different from how
>> an HVM domain is doing normal reboot: we destroy the original domain and
>> create a new one instead of cleaning up the original one (as it looks
>> safer and much easier I suppose).
>
> Right, that was my first thought too.
>
> Ian.

-- 
  Vitaly