From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Convert shadow-paging to Kconfig Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:38:38 -0700 Message-ID: <569E4A6E02000078000C891A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> References: <1453142404-8819-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1453196796.6020.217.camel@citrix.com> <569E46E002000078000C889C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <569E3A7B.6070501@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <569E3A7B.6070501@citrix.com> 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: Andrew Cooper Cc: George Dunlap , TimDeegan , Doug Goldstein , Ian Campbell , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 19.01.16 at 14:30, wrote: > On 19/01/16 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 19.01.16 at 10:46, wrote: >>> On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 18:40 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper >>> Does this have any impact on migration of either PV or HVM guests? What >>> about nested virt? >> At least PV guests won't be migratable anymore when there's no >> shadow mode. > > What? Shadow mode (or lack thereof) has no impact whatsoever on migration. So how would log-dirty mode work for a PV guest without shadow code? Jan