Re: [Xen-devel] [HYBRID]: status update...

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 04:59:58PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 04:25:01PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> >> I hope this isn't bikeshedding; but I don't like "Hybrid" as a name
>> >> for this feature, mainly for "marketing" reasons.  I think it will
>> >> probably give people the wrong idea about what the technology does.
>> >> PV domains is one of Xen's really distinct advantages -- much simpler
>> >> interface, lighter-weight (no qemu, legacy boot), &c &c.  As I
>> >> understand it, the mode you've been calling "hybrid" still has all of
>> >> these advantages -- it just uses some of the HVM hardware extensions
>> >> to make the interface even simpler / faster.  I'm afraid "hybrid" may
>> >> be seen as, "Even Xen has had to give up on PV."
>> >>
>> >> Can I suggest something like "PVH" instead?  That (at least to me)
>> >> makes it clear that PV domains are still fully PV, but just use some
>> >> HVM extensions.
>> >
>> > if (xen_pvh_domain()?
>> >
>> > if (xen_pv_h_domain()?
>> >
>> > if (xen_h_domain()) ?
>> >
>> > if (xen_pvplus_domain()) ?
>> >
>> > if (xen_pv_ext_domain()) ?
>> >
>> > I think I like 'pv+'?
>>
>> I could deal with pv+.  However, in general I dislike that kind of
>> "now even better!" marketing.  PV+, EPV (Enhanced / extended PV), PVX
>> (Extreme PV!) -- they all sound cool when they come out, but five
>> years later, when they're not so new or sexy anymore, they all sound
>> lame.  PVH is just descriptive -- it will always be PV with HVM
>> extensions, so it will age much better. :-)
>
> How about pv_with_mmu_in_hvm_container_domain() ?
>
> Ok, that is a bit to lengthy. How about then:
>
> if (xen_pvhvm_ext_domain()) ?
>
> The 'if (xen_pvh_domain())' is just one characer short of 'xen_pv_domain()'
> and one might not notice it. Perhaps then 'if (xen_pv_h_domain()' ?

Hmm -- that's an interesting issue I hadn't thought of.  "PVHVM" has
already been sort of taken by Stefano's extensions to allow Linux
kernels booted in HVM mode to use some of the PV extensions.  I tend
to think "xen_pvh_domain()" is probably OK, but maybe calling it
"pvext" (or "pvhext") in the code, and "PVH" in documentation /
stories?  Just using "pvext" everywhere could work as well; it's a
little bit "now even better!", but not as much as pvplus.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel