Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] tools: fix xen-detect to correctly identify domU type

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 23/03/16 11:34, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 23/03/16 10:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 23.03.16 at 11:14, <JGross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 7. Report type according to features found (this is a little bit
>>>    ugly: we have to rely on the current hypervisor implementation
>>>    regarding the bits set for the different guest types).
>> Well, in some of the cases feature flags only make sense for one
>> kind of guest, so if such a flag is set it could be used as positive
>> indication (while it being clear may then still mean nothing).
>>
>>> Would it make sense to add another file to /sys/hypervisor/properties?
>>> Something like guest_type, containing "pv", "hvm" or "pvh"? If existing
>>> this could be used to report the guest type.
>> That would seem a good idea to me. What do others, namely
>> Linux maintainers, think?
> 
> I would recommend against differentiating hvm and pvh, especially as pvh
> is being replaced with hvmlite.
> 
> If you want more generic terms which might be acceptable to Linux, how
> about "ring deprivileged" (which applies to UML and Lguest), and
> "hardware extensions"?

Before making such a move I think David's question should be answered
first.


Juergen


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