Re: [Xen-devel] [V11 PATCH 00/21]PVH xen: Phase I, Version 11 patches...

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 23.08.13 at 13:15, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 23.08.13 at 03:18, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Finally, I've the V11 set of patches.
>>>
>>> V11:
>>>    - gdt union patch not needed anymore, so dropped it.
>>>    - patch 17 made the last patch
>>>    - merged patch 22 and 23.
>>
>> So I'd be okay with applying 1...8 and 10...16, provided
>> - you, Mukesh, can confirm that 9 can safely be left out,
>> - you, George, don't object to that (considering your comments
>>   on v10).
> 
> 1-8,10-16 I'm OK with the code for the most part, but the changesets
> themselves leave something to be desired.
> 
> Many of the prep patches would be fine, and the e820 struct relocate
> is OK as well (though the changelog entry isn't really good).
> 
> But the read_segment_register patch I think needs to be put in after
> the is_pvh_*() patch, so the entire new bit of functionality comes in
> one go.  And the guest_kernel_mode() change should be a separate
> patch, since it performs a similar function to read_segment_register()
> -- i.e., enabling the emulated PV ops.
> 
> In many cases, there are handfuls of other "!is_hvm" -> "is_pv"
> scattered randomly throughout unrelated other changes.  And some of
> the changes from patches 15-16 I think should be grouped together with
> later changesets (e.g., all the irq-related ones in a single
> changeset).
> 
> Also, I think that having a separate set of nearly-identical exit
> handlers for PVH is a really bad idea.  Without them, however, pvh.c
> is only a single small function long -- so I think we shouldn't bother
> with pvh.c, and should just put that function into vmx.c.
> 
> All in all, I would personally prefer if you hold off until my series
> re-work; I should have something by the end of next week.
> 
> My basic outline for the re-worked patch series looks like the
> following (NOT one patch per bullet):
> - Prep patches
> - Introduce pvh domain type
> - Disable unused HVM functionality
> - Enable used PV functionality
> 
> What do you think?

Fine with me, but perhaps Mukesh won't be that happy...

Jan


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