From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:38:23 -0700 Message-ID: <4BA3E0BF.60508@goop.org> References: <4BA0FF8C.30302@goop.org> <201003180930.30655.sheng@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201003180930.30655.sheng@linux.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Sheng Yang Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "Zhang, Xiantao" , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/17/2010 06:30 PM, Sheng Yang wrote: >> Xiantao has some interesting ideas for this. >> >> > Xiantao and I have discussed on this for a month... Basically we have got two > approaches now, but we can't reach an agreement... I would work on it after > current hybrid thing settled down. Of course, we want MSI support benefit > pv_ops dom0 as well as hybrid. > Xiantao's proposal of a new top-level MSI API for the kernel looks pretty clean, and I think it has a reasonable chance of being accepted upstream. What's your proposal? Thanks, J