Re: [PATCH RFC v1 00/13] Introduce HMV without dm and new boot ABI

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>]

On 06/23/2015 09:12 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 11:55 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> I don't know if we should introduce a new name for this, but I wanted to
>>> point out that this is different from PVH from Xen point of view. In
>>> particular most of the outstanding PVH work items (32bit, AMD) on the
>>> hypervisor would be redudant if we get this to work, right? If that is
>>> the case, then I think it is best we agree on which road we want to take
>>> going forward as soon as possible to avoid duplicated or wasted efforts.
>> I think what you are saying is we either want to pursue this path _or_
>> PVH, but not both, and I would be inclined to agree, it seems to me like
>> duplication of both effort and functionality to do both.
> Right, especially given that they both seem to provide similar
> functionalities.

Given that 32-bit support of existing PVH model looks pretty simple and 
required AMD changes are also well understood (right?) and do not appear 
particularly invasive I would argue for finishing those two while 
continuing to work on unified boot model.

-boris