[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Xen Project policy on feature flags
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:32:59PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 11:05 +0100, David Vrabel wrote: > > On 29/09/14 10:36, George Dunlap wrote: > > > On 09/29/2014 10:31 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > > >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:00:13AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > > >>> On 09/26/2014 03:49 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > >>>>> Let me rephrase - will it boot in the same fashion (And with the same > > >>>>> bugs) as it did prior to this functionality being introduced? > > >>>> 3.15 -> dom0 on ARM broken (if netback is used) > > >>>> 3.17 -> dom0 on ARM is fixed, only if the kernel is compiled with > > >>>> CONFIG_ARM_LPAE > > >>>> > > >>>> Reverting the XENFEAT_grant_map_identity related changes would give you > > >>>> a system broken even with CONFIG_ARM_LPAE. > > >>>> Reverting Zoltan's changes to netback would give you a working system. > > >> FWIW reverting isn't practical as many more fixes have gone in. > > >> > > >> I think a possible workaround is to copy directly xen-netback directory > > >> from 3.14 and build it against new kernel. Netback itself is quite > > >> self-contained. > > > > > > Could we provide a patch which would just disable the problematic > > > behavior? > > > > No. This would require re-introducing the grant copy from-guest path to > > netback. This would be expensive since netback has seen significant > > changes since (multi-queue support in particular). > > > > It would also not fix the underlying ARM-specific bug and other users of > > grant mapping would be similarly broken. > > > > I think we should: > > > > 1. Revert XENFEAT_grant_map_identity. > > 2. Add the flush-cache-by-bus-address hypercall. > > 3. Add the Linux support this this cache operation and tag this for stable. > > 4. Backport the hypercall to 4.4.x. > > > > I think this is critical to fix in 4.5 and should have a freeze > > exception. I would even consider slipping the 4.5 release to get this > > fixed. > > I agree with this plan of action. > > If the new h/call doesn't make 4.5.0 for some reason then it absolutely > must make it for 4.5.1 (and I have no doubt that it would). And there goes my plan for an relaxed-release. I don't recall seeing my answer about distangling CONFIG_ARM_LPAE and the DMA_ADDR_64_BIT (or whatever it is called) config option. Which was meant to allow an 32-bit OS to deal with 64-bit PCI devices - which would have allowed us to still to program 64-bit PCI devices without the page table support for it. Is that an option? > > Ian. > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |