From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 00/13] Introduce HMV without dm and new boot ABI Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:50:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1435063801.28264.203.camel@citrix.com> References: <1434989487-74940-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com> <20150622180544.GA9175@l.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7Neb-00056j-MU for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:50:17 +0000 In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, Roger Pau Monne List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 11:55 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > I don't know if we should introduce a new name for this, but I wanted to > point out that this is different from PVH from Xen point of view. In > particular most of the outstanding PVH work items (32bit, AMD) on the > hypervisor would be redudant if we get this to work, right? If that is > the case, then I think it is best we agree on which road we want to take > going forward as soon as possible to avoid duplicated or wasted efforts. I think what you are saying is we either want to pursue this path _or_ PVH, but not both, and I would be inclined to agree, it seems to me like duplication of both effort and functionality to do both. Ian.