>>> On 28.05.15 at 14:27, <vkuzn...@redhat.com> wrote: > "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> writes: > >>>>> On 27.05.15 at 17:25, <vkuzn...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> This patch series provides x86 PVHVM domains with an ability to perform >>> kexec/kdump-style operations. >> >> Before I get to look at this latest version, may I go a step back and >> ask for clarification whether all of these (seemingly fragile) >> manipulations are actually needed (such a rationale for the series >> would btw be quite good to have in the overview mail, rather than >> having to wade through mailing list history). In particular, why is it >> that we need a new domain in the first place? After all, native >> kexec doesn't imply a new physical machine either. Perhaps that >> was discussed a long while back, but I can't seem to find any of >> that now that I would like to read through it again. > > Yes, here are some highlights from last year's discussion: > > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-08/msg01908.html > > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-08/msg01979.html
I.e. what you currently implement is David's model without Konrad's later alternative really having been explored? Iiuc David's main reservation (which I share) was against a myriad of reset-this and reset-that hypercalls, which Konrad's reset-everything would address equally well. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
