From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH] nested vmx: Fix the booting of L2 PAE guest Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:57:22 +0100 Message-ID: <51CC1A92.3020402@eu.citrix.com> References: <1372053300-20211-1-git-send-email-dongxiao.xu@intel.com> <40776A41FC278F40B59438AD47D147A9117AF4C1@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <51CC169C02000078000E10FF@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51CC169C02000078000E10FF@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Dongxiao Xu , Keir Fraser , Eddie Dong , Jun Nakajima , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 27/06/13 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 27.06.13 at 03:14, "Xu, Dongxiao" wrote: >> Hi stakeholders, >> >> I saw the patch is not merged yet. Do you have any other comment about this >> patch? I think it is a critical fix for 4.3 release in nested virtualization >> side. > Irrespective of Keir's ack I was hoping for an ack from one of the > VMX maintainers. Even more so as they are, just like you, working > for Intel I think it would be appropriate for you to get in touch > with them to fulfill their maintainer task here. In fact you should > have Cc-ed them with your initial patch submission. > > Independently of that, you should have also Cc-ed George if you > want this to go in for 4.3. In the absence of this, I had simply put > this on my post-4.3 queue... Well normally I think I would have said "no" to this change. You guys haven't done a very good job of engaging with the release process we've been trying to develop -- you didn't report this bug to me so that I could track it and make informed decisions regarding the release. However, I still consider nested VMX as "experimental" -- the fact that in the current tree, Win7 won't boot on Xen-on-Xen kind of confirms that status to me. :-) Since it is experimental, like the ARM port, it has a slightly different release criteria: basically, as long as you don't touch code in the non-experimental path, you can take your own risks regarding breaking functionality. Given that this patch only touches code inside vvmx.c, I'm assuming that this code *cannot* be touched by anyone who is *not* running in nested virt mode. If that's correct, I'm inclined to say we can accept it. But I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions. -George