subject:"Is\: Xen architecture document. Was\: Re\: \[Xen\-devel\] Is\: axe read_tscp pvops call. Was\: Re\: \[RFC\] ACPI S3 and Xen \(suprisingly small\\\!\)."

Re: Is: Xen architecture document. Was: Re: [Xen-devel] Is: axe read_tscp pvops call. Was: Re: [RFC] ACPI S3 and Xen (suprisingly small\!).

2012-10-19 Thread H. Peter Anvin

On 10/19/2012 08:48 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> paravirtualized architectures out there which are perfectly well >> documented and supportable, but Xen has resisted doing that for >> years, and all we ever get are vague future promises. > > There is no resistance - and it is being done. Ev

Is: Xen architecture document. Was: Re: [Xen-devel] Is: axe read_tscp pvops call. Was: Re: [RFC] ACPI S3 and Xen (suprisingly small\!).

2012-10-19 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk

> paravirtualized architectures out there which are perfectly well > documented and supportable, but Xen has resisted doing that for > years, and all we ever get are vague future promises. There is no resistance - and it is being done. Every month we document various APIs, man-pages, etc so that k