From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] remove xend for 4.5 (Was: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Exclude xend from toolstack maintainers entry) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:17:32 +0100 Message-ID: <53396AEC.5010705@eu.citrix.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> <20140328170919.GC12659@phenom.dumpdata.com> <1396264733.8667.13.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <20140331115611.GA24351@u109add4315675089e695.ant.amazon.com> <5339598D.90803@eu.citrix.com> <20140331121657.GB24351@u109add4315675089e695.ant.amazon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140331121657.GB24351@u109add4315675089e695.ant.amazon.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: Matt Wilson Cc: Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Jan Beulich , Matt Wilson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/31/2014 01:16 PM, Matt Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 01:03:25PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 03/31/2014 12:56 PM, Matt Wilson wrote: >>> 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]. >> Well, given that AER was not mentioned 6 months ago when this came >> up, it seems that keeping xend in tree is a blocker for people >> actually asking for things to be added to xl. > Actually, we discussed it on the phone [1]. Unfortunately I didn't > complete my assigned action item to post on the list. Ah, right. :-) In any case, the relevant question isn't so much "Is this a blocker for xend removal", so much as "Is xl support for this a blocker for the 4.5 release?" -George