Re: [GIT PULL] remove xend for 4.5 (Was: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Exclude xend from toolstack maintainers entry)

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 03/31/2014 03:05 PM, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
> Il 31/03/2014 15:17, George Dunlap ha scritto:
>> 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?"
>
> There is another thing to do in libxl to solve the problem of network 
> not working after restore.
> Actually the only workaround is to assign fixed mac address in xl cfg.
> I reported this during 4.2 development but it was too late to "fix" it 
> if I remember good.
>
> Thanks for any reply.

Yes, this is on our list, and I think it should be a blocker for 4.5.

For future reference, please don't change the subject -- this thread is 
about xend / xl functionality, not general 4.5 planning. (Hopefully 
those e-mails should start soon.)

  -George