At 07:52 -0400 on 24 Jun (1435132373), Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 06/24/2015 06:14 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
El 24/06/15 a les 12.05, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
On 24.06.15 at 11:47, roger@citrix.com wrote:
What needs to be done (ordered by priority):
- Clean up the patches, this
On 06/24/2015 06:14 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
El 24/06/15 a les 12.05, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
On 24.06.15 at 11:47, roger@citrix.com wrote:
What needs to be done (ordered by priority):
- Clean up the patches, this patch series was done in less than a week.
- Finish the boot ABI (this
El 24/06/15 a les 12.05, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
On 24.06.15 at 11:47, roger@citrix.com wrote:
What needs to be done (ordered by priority):
- Clean up the patches, this patch series was done in less than a week.
- Finish the boot ABI (this would also be needed for PVH anyway).
-
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:04:45PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
El 24/06/15 a les 13.52, Boris Ostrovsky ha escrit:
On 06/24/2015 06:14 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
El 24/06/15 a les 12.05, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
On 24.06.15 at 11:47, roger@citrix.com wrote:
What needs to be done
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 06/24/2015 09:26 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
- PCI pass-through.
Do we really need PCI pass-through? I see HVMlite mostly useful for
Dom0, but also for higher security Linux and BSD guests.
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
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
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 06:55:12PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Hi Roger,
given that this patch series is actually using the Xen hvm builder, I
take that all the PVH code paths in Xen or the guest kernel are not
actually used,
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
Before reading any further, keep in mind this is a VERY inital RFC
prototype series. Many things are not finished, and those that are done
make heavy use of duck tape in order to keep things into place.
Now that you are warned, this series is split in the following order:
- Patches from 1 to
Hi Roger,
given that this patch series is actually using the Xen hvm builder, I
take that all the PVH code paths in Xen or the guest kernel are not
actually used, correct? This is more like PV on HVM without QEMU, right?
Do you think think this can work for Dom0 too?
Would that make all the PVH
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 06:55:12PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Hi Roger,
given that this patch series is actually using the Xen hvm builder, I
take that all the PVH code paths in Xen or the guest kernel are not
actually used, correct? This is more like PV on HVM without QEMU, right?
12 matches
Mail list logo
