From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matt Wilson <msw@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] remove xend for 4.5 (Was: Re: [PATCH]
 MAINTAINERS: Exclude xend from toolstack maintainers entry)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:56:17 +0200
Message-ID: <20140331115611.GA24351@u109add4315675089e695.ant.amazon.com>
References: <1395321629-24392-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com>
	<532AFBFC0200007800126275@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<1395324138.16974.61.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<1395918009.22909.50.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<CAFLBxZY_ENX4B+t3Nq_rG_RxhZRKskG-GxiMiL8PQCRsfqQN+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140328170919.GC12659@phenom.dumpdata.com>
	<1396264733.8667.13.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1396264733.8667.13.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Matt Wilson <msw@amazon.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:18:53PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 13:09 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

[...]

> > I don't really like adding more of 'xend has this' to the list,
> 
> that's ok.
> 
> > but
> > Jan discovered that 'xend' was using the group assigment hypercall for
> > PCI devices while 'xl' is not doing that. 
> >  
> > That hypercall has certain benefits - you can use it to figure out if 
> > all of the PCI devices underneath a bridge are assigned to one
> > guest and not shared amongts the guests.
> 
> I think this is at the wishlist rather than blocker end of the spectrum,
> and probably falls under the general category of "xl pci passthrough has
> sharp edges"? Does that sound right?

Probably. There are other areas that are mightily sharp as well. They
might not be blockers for the project to remove Xend code from the
tree, but they'll be blockers for adoption of newer releases that
don't include Xend.

Another for the list is AER handling. That's only implemented in Xend
now [1].

--msw

[1]
http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/GSoc_2014#Improve_PCIe_Advanced_Error_Reporting_.28AER.29_handling_for_passed-through_devices