[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/18 V2]: PVH xen: Introduce PVH guest type

  • To: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:07:10 +0000
  • Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:07:39 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
  • Thread-index: Ac4plFUaV3VJvIv/xUmd9IG5sF+E1w==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/18 V2]: PVH xen: Introduce PVH guest type

On 25/03/2013 19:05, "Mukesh Rathor" <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> These are all ugly, and I don't see why the triplet I suggested
>> (is_pv, is_pvh, and is_hvm), including their intended use, wouldn't
>> be acceptable.
> Because this implies pvh is a new type, whereas like I said before,
> PVH is a PV guest. Ok, lets go with your suggestion above, and if
> people find it confusing, we can change in future.

It's not really PV -- the interfaces and execution environment are somewhat
different, evidence being that a legacy PV guest will not boot in PVH mode!
There are certainly similarities, but then there are between HVM and PV too
(e.g., many hypercalls), so at the end of the day a guest is one of
PV/PVH/HVM. So I have to agree with Jan.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.