Re: HVMlite ABI specification DRAFT A

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 18:48 +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I've Cced a bunch of people who have expressed interest in the HVMlite 
> design/implementation,

I think "HVMlite" has now reached the point where we should start the
transition from PVH (classic) to PVH (hvmlite) naming rather than
introducing yet another guest type terminology where end users are going to
see it (the 4.7 release, specifications in tree, etc).

So IMHO HVMlite should be referred to as "PVH" throughout, with the
original implementation retconned to be called "PVH (classic)" or
"Prototype-PVH" or something. A short paragraph explaining the background
might be appropriate.

Calling them PVHv1 and PVHv2 would also be tolerable.

This should extend to all the documentation etc as well as IMHO to patch
postings (in that case "PVH (hvmlite)" might be appropriate in places where
there might be confusion until "PVH (classic)" really goes away).

The point is that dmlite was always supposed to be a reimplementation of
the PVH concept using the lessons learned from the "come at it from the PV
end" attempt, it's not (from a user PoV) a new operating mode.

Ian.

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