[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120530155850.GD15438@x1.osrc.amd.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:58:50 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
Jacob Shin <Jacob.Shin@....com>, mingo@...e.hu,
jeremy@...p.org, tglx@...utronix.de, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/amd: fix crash as Xen Dom0 on AMD
Trinity systems
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 04:40:37PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 30.05.12 at 17:12, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> > This current case should be a perfect example for why xen shouldn't be
> > sprinkling code all over the place.
>
> Which means you're denying the benefits of para-virtualization
Does it really mean that?
> (at the base system level; perhaps it's less of a problem for
> you when it comes to pv device drivers, which are generally
> standalone entities) as that's what distinguishes Xen from all other
> virtualization solutions Linux supports.
All I'm saying is, xen should solve the whole deal of what it wants to
do (whatever that is) _without_ and _agnostic_ from arch/x86/. Otherwise
x86 changes break xen.
I couldn't care less about what distinguishes xen from all other
solutions.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists