From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [v7][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:56:50 +0100 Message-ID: <559FF952020000780008F985@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <1436420047-25356-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: Tiejun Chen , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 10.07.15 at 16:50, wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote: >> v7: > > It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It > seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are > either ready to go in or pretty close. > > The main thing I think we're missing is the hvmloader stuff (5-7). Is > that right? > > I looked through it for subsets of patches we could usefully check in, > but it looks like the device MMIO range placement in the hvmloader > patches are pretty crucial for proper functioning, even if we're not > doing anything in particular with the memory layout (a la > strategy=host). Yeah, putting in the hypervisor bits would make little sense without the hvmloader stuff going in at (about) the same time. Jan