From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/amd: fix crash as Xen Dom0 on AMD Trinity systems Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:58:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20120530155850.GD15438@x1.osrc.amd.com> References: <1338383402-3838-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@amd.com> <4FC63DAF0200007800086DC5@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <4FC62888.9010407@amd.com> <4FC649790200007800086E51@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <4FC631F0.9080109@zytor.com> <20120530144929.GH3207@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20120530151235.GB15635@x1.osrc.amd.com> <4FC65B950200007800086F5B@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FC65B950200007800086F5B@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andre Przywara , Jacob Shin , mingo@elte.hu, jeremy@goop.org, tglx@linutronix.de, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 04:40:37PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 30.05.12 at 17:12, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > This current case should be a perfect example for why xen shouldn't be > > sprinkling code all over the place. > > Which means you're denying the benefits of para-virtualization Does it really mean that? > (at the base system level; perhaps it's less of a problem for > you when it comes to pv device drivers, which are generally > standalone entities) as that's what distinguishes Xen from all other > virtualization solutions Linux supports. All I'm saying is, xen should solve the whole deal of what it wants to do (whatever that is) _without_ and _agnostic_ from arch/x86/. Otherwise x86 changes break xen. I couldn't care less about what distinguishes xen from all other solutions. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.