On 03/23/2018 10:27 AM, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
> ---
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> Cc: George Dunlap <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com>
> Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com>
> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Cc: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>
> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>
> Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Tim Deegan <t...@xen.org>
> Cc: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>
> ---
> SUPPORT.md | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/SUPPORT.md b/SUPPORT.md
> index ddcdfab5ad..fb0151aa7b 100644
> --- a/SUPPORT.md
> +++ b/SUPPORT.md
> @@ -96,6 +96,30 @@ Requires hardware virtualisation support (Intel VMX / AMD
> SVM)
>
> ARM only has one guest type at the moment
>
> +## Domain 0 Type
> +
> +### x86/PV Dom0
> +
> + Status: Supported
> +
> +Traditional Xen PV Domain 0
> +
> +No hardware requirements
> +
> +### x86/PVH Dom0
> +
> + Status: Experimental
> +
> +PVH based Domain 0
> +
> +Requires CPU hardware virtualization extensions and an IOMMU.
> +
> +### ARM Dom0
> +
> + Status: Supported
> +
> +ARM only has one Domain 0 type at the moment
> +
There's a lot of redundancy here. What about keeping the guest types
together, like the following?
---
### x86/PVH
Status, domU: Supported
Status, dom0: Experimental
[description]
Note also that dom0 support requires IOMMU or VT-d hardware.
---
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
