Re: [Xen-devel] [PING] various patches

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 17.09.14 at 19:06, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 13:19 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> "REST"-maintainers,
>> 
>> is there any chance I could gets acks or otherwise on
>> 
>> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg01751.html 
> 
> This looks like x86 rather than rest? In any case it seems like Andrew
> is looking into it, and if he is happy with it I think that should be
> sufficient for you to go ahead.

Both help x86 only for now, but both change common (softirq) code
in order to do so.

>> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg02105.html 
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with this, but I'm not sure if the reasons
> for Keir's original concerns have now gone away or the circumstances
> have changed etc.

As said in the non-commit comment - I re-posted with the grown use
of rangesets in mind (namely the ones Paul added for the multiple
ioemu servers).

>> Also, does anyone have comments on the approach taken in
>> 
>> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg02103.html 
>> 
>> (see namely the not to be committed part of the description)?
> 
> The bit about migration to an older hypervisor not working? I think you
> are right that we don't care to support that.

Not just that, but also the arch_domain_unpause() approach.
Andrew was concerned about the possible impact, yet I can't
see a better approach to do post-restore adjustments with the
full new state guaranteed to be in place.

Jan


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