From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/18] PVH xen: tools changes to create PVH
 domain
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:29:44 +0100
Message-ID: <1377775784.11455.23.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
References: <1369445137-19755-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<1369445137-19755-9-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
	<1371049088.24512.450.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<20130614171437.49f55cea@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<1371467494.23802.49.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<20130730164716.10969419@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<1375272057.7382.24.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
	<20130731190213.0b57efd0@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<CAFLBxZaJkrYH-3OdMbCe1C7VTeWi=kAzy-cQ1RKhw8Ka789NCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFLBxZaJkrYH-3OdMbCe1C7VTeWi=kAzy-cQ1RKhw8Ka789NCQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 12:13 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not sure how you are currently signalling to the hypervisor that a
> >> new domain is a PVH domain? I had a look through this patch and must
> >> be being thick because I don't see it.
> >
> > I had a flag set, but it was recommended during RFC to remove it. So,
> > now in xen, a PV with HAP is a PVH guest:
> 
> Why was it recommended to remove it?
> 
> "PVH == PV + HAP" is a ridiculous interface, and one which will make
> it hard to import shadow in the future.  In my series I'm planning on
> adding XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_pvh_guest, and using that instead.

These are not stable ABI interfaces, so if someone wants to do PVH with
Shadow then they can just change it.