From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 00/13] Introduce HMV without dm and new boot ABI Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 22:45:14 -0400 Message-ID: <558A19BA.4070400@oracle.com> References: <1434989487-74940-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com> <20150622180544.GA9175@l.oracle.com> <1435063801.28264.203.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7ahA-0001Da-Hn for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 02:45:48 +0000 In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini , Ian Campbell Cc: elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Roger Pau Monne List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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