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 15:08:10 +0100 Message-ID: <533976CA.3050103@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> <53396AEC.5010705@eu.citrix.com> <5339763C.7020007@m2r.biz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5339763C.7020007@m2r.biz> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Fabio Fantoni , 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 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