Re: Clarifying PVH mode requirements

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

On 02/04/2016 05:01 PM, PGNet Dev wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
>>>     Current PVH implementation has never been described as
>>>     production-ready. What is happening now with HVMlite is
>>>     essentially bringing PVH to production-quality level.
>>>
>>>
>>> So should I s/PVH/HVMlite/g?
>>
>>  From user perspective that will be almost true. I am not sure it should
>> be classified as PV mode anymore since it's really an HVM guest without
>> any devices. But it's not there yet so it's too early to point your
>> editor there.
>>
>> BTW, I don't think the flowchart in the wiki is correct as far as PVH is
>> concerned --- you can't use PVH unless HVM (and, in fact, PVHVM) is
>> supported.
>
> Noting the very recent flurry of HVMLite activity, so where does PVH sit?
>
> As it's not production-ready (and, atm, unusable here), is it planned 
> to be? 

Not the current implementation.

> Or is it being simply leap-frogged by HVMLite?
>

I don't know about "leap-frogged", I think you might say PVH evolved 
into HVMlite?

-boris