From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mukesh Rathor Subject: Re: HYBRID: PV in HVM container Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20110628113205.1a3c5988@mantra.us.oracle.com> References: <20110627185100.5f8fe247@mantra.us.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: Dunlap , "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" George, Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:46:08 +0100 Keir Fraser wrote: > On 28/06/2011 02:51, "Mukesh Rathor" wrote: > > Hi Keir, > > > > Actually, I modified the PVops guest. The changes in the pvops are > > minimal and mostly confied to xen specific files. So I think it has > > a fair shot of being upstreamed, at least, worth a shot. I will run > > them by Jeremy/Konrad and get their opinions. > > Well, maybe. But we now have HVM guests, PV guests, and PV-HVM > guests. I'm not sure that adding explicitly HVM-PV guests as well > isn't just a bloody mess. Could we perhaps define a HYBRID type that will have characteristics like, this runs in HVM container, it doesn't use EPT, it uses HVM callback, etc.. We can they modify it without defining any new types in future, say we find it works better with EPT under certain circumstances etc.. What do you think? thanks, Mukesh