On 22/01/2019 08:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.01.19 at 19:08, wrote:
>> On 17/01/2019 13:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.01.19 at 10:00, wrote:
@@ -709,6 +709,12 @@ Controls for the dom0 IOMMU setup.
This option is enabled by default on x86 systems, and invalid on ARM
>>> On 21.01.19 at 19:08, wrote:
> On 17/01/2019 13:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.01.19 at 10:00, wrote:
>>> @@ -709,6 +709,12 @@ Controls for the dom0 IOMMU setup.
>>> This option is enabled by default on x86 systems, and invalid on ARM
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> +* The `none`
On 17/01/2019 13:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.01.19 at 10:00, wrote:
>> @@ -709,6 +709,12 @@ Controls for the dom0 IOMMU setup.
>> This option is enabled by default on x86 systems, and invalid on ARM
>> systems.
>>
>> +* The `none` option is intended for development purposes
>>> On 16.01.19 at 10:00, wrote:
> @@ -709,6 +709,12 @@ Controls for the dom0 IOMMU setup.
> This option is enabled by default on x86 systems, and invalid on ARM
> systems.
>
> +* The `none` option is intended for development purposes only, and skips
> +certain safety checks
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:00:50AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> For development purposes, it is very convenient to boot Xen as a PVH guest,
> with an XTF PV or PVH "dom0". The edit-compile-go cycle is a matter of
> seconds, and you can reasonably insert printk() debugging in places which
> which
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:00:50AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> For development purposes, it is very convenient to boot Xen as a PVH guest,
> with an XTF PV or PVH "dom0". The edit-compile-go cycle is a matter of
> seconds, and you can reasonably insert printk() debugging in places which
> which
For development purposes, it is very convenient to boot Xen as a PVH guest,
with an XTF PV or PVH "dom0". The edit-compile-go cycle is a matter of
seconds, and you can reasonably insert printk() debugging in places which
which would be completely infeasible when booting fully-fledged guests.
