Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.1 + Linux compiled with PVH == BOOM

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> 12/23/13 10:39 AM >>>
>>>> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> 12/21/13 12:10 PM >>>
>>On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 12:57 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> But perhaps that is not the way to do it and we should just cherry-pick
>>> 30832c06a8d1f9caff0987654ef9e24d59469d9a in Xen 4.1?
>>
>>I think we should do both, i.e. backport 30832c06a8d1 now to solve the
>>immediate problem and then look at fixing unstable to be more accepting
>>of new features which it doesn't yet know about.
>
>Hmm, not sure - without a split between necessary to be understood
>and acceptable to be unknown ones, I'm not sure either model will be
>the right thing.

And actually, in the case at hand the "BOOM" is correct: If the kernel tells
the hypervisor that it needs a feature the hypervisor doesn't even recognize,
it's surely wrong to ignore this. The mistake here is for the kernel to require
that feature statically in the first place - that should be done only if the 
kernel
could _only_ boot in PVH mode.

Jan


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