From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][pvops_dom0][2/4] Introduce the external control operation interface for domain0 ACPI parser Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:23:04 -0700 Message-ID: <4A71D6F8.9040007@goop.org> References: <4D05DB80B95B23498C72C700BD6C2E0B315D64CC@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4D05DB80B95B23498C72C700BD6C2E0B315D65B6@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4A707DC1.9070708@goop.org> <4D05DB80B95B23498C72C700BD6C2E0B315D6A67@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from claw.goop.org ([74.207.240.146]:60959 "EHLO claw.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751899AbZG3RXF (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:23:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4D05DB80B95B23498C72C700BD6C2E0B315D6A67@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Yu, Ke" Cc: "Brown, Len" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "Tian, Kevin" On 07/30/09 02:18, Yu, Ke wrote: > Can you explain what the deeper design problem is? > I don't know. It may be that ACPI and Xen-style virtualization fundimentally have designs which can't easily co-exist, and it is unavoidable. I'm simply saying there appears to be a problem because the need to put a Xen-specific hook in a piece of generic code is generally a symptom of a design problem. J