From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] Nested Virtualization: tools Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:26:16 +0100 Message-ID: References: <19860.50935.146868.916017@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <19860.50935.146868.916017@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Jackson , Christoph Egger Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 31/03/2011 19:24, "Ian Jackson" wrote: > Christoph Egger writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/12] Nested Virtualization: > tools"): >> tools: Add nestedhvm guest config option > > I don't have an objection to this. The tools parts seem largely sane. > However, I have two queries. > > Firstly, one for Christoph: is this patch safe to apply before the > relevant hypervisor features, or will it break ? If it will break > then it should be applied later. > > Secondly, one for the Xen.org team in general: are we accepting new > features in Xend ? If not then I should drop the changes to xend from > this patch. If we are dropping xend in this release cycle, why would we bother taking new features for it? In fact, why is xend even still in the tree? :-) -- Keir > Ian. > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel