Mailing List Archive: [Xen-merge] status

[Xen-merge] status

Aug 10, 2005, 10:35 AM

Post #1 of 4 (313 views)

Guys,

Where do you think we stand as regards xen / vmi ?

Andrew responded to my message saying he thought I'd put forward good
points why the ROM approach is not the way to go, but I'm not sure what
the current 'community opinion' is?

Any ideas how best to proceed? Keep pushing the sub-arch approach, and
maybe have vmware add vmi hooks to that?

Thanks,
Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-merge mailing list
Xen-merge@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge

Re: [Xen-merge] status [ In reply to ]

chrisw at osdl

Aug 10, 2005, 10:41 AM

Post #2 of 4 (314 views)

Permalink

* Ian Pratt (m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> Andrew responded to my message saying he thought I'd put forward good
> points why the ROM approach is not the way to go, but I'm not sure what
> the current 'community opinion' is?
>
> Any ideas how best to proceed? Keep pushing the sub-arch approach, and
> maybe have vmware add vmi hooks to that?

Yes, I think that's the best option. Continue to move forward as we are.
There's loads of cleanup before we ever get to VMI anyway. It's nice to
take one digestible chunk at a time.

thanks,
-chris

_______________________________________________
Xen-merge mailing list
Xen-merge@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge

Re: [Xen-merge] status [ In reply to ]

mbligh at mbligh

Aug 10, 2005, 10:52 AM

Post #3 of 4 (313 views)

Permalink

--On Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:41:44 -0700 Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> wrote:

> * Ian Pratt (m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>> Andrew responded to my message saying he thought I'd put forward good
>> points why the ROM approach is not the way to go, but I'm not sure what
>> the current 'community opinion' is?
>>
>> Any ideas how best to proceed? Keep pushing the sub-arch approach, and
>> maybe have vmware add vmi hooks to that?
>
> Yes, I think that's the best option. Continue to move forward as we are.
> There's loads of cleanup before we ever get to VMI anyway. It's nice to
> take one digestible chunk at a time.

I think it'd be good if we supported the cleanup part of their patches;
partly because I think they actually make the code more readable, and
partly to promote some sort of harmony that'll make it easier to come
to a consensus on the other abstractions we want ...

M.

_______________________________________________
Xen-merge mailing list
Xen-merge@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge

Re: [Xen-merge] status [ In reply to ]

ak at suse

Aug 10, 2005, 3:22 PM

Post #4 of 4 (312 views)

Permalink

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 06:35:33PM +0100, Ian Pratt wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> Where do you think we stand as regards xen / vmi ?
>
> Andrew responded to my message saying he thought I'd put forward good
> points why the ROM approach is not the way to go, but I'm not sure what
> the current 'community opinion' is?
>
> Any ideas how best to proceed? Keep pushing the sub-arch approach, and
> maybe have vmware add vmi hooks to that?

The first and easy step is to get all the cleanups in. But that's still
done only very partially.

-Andi

_______________________________________________
Xen-merge mailing list
Xen-merge@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge