Re: [Xen-devel] 32-on-64: pvfb issue

To:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] 32-on-64: pvfb issue
From:	Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:06:20 +0100
Cc:	Xen devel list <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:07:12 -0800
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<45B0E441.2060903@xxxxxxx> (Gerd Hoffmann's message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:31:13 +0100")
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References:	<C1D69299.7E50%keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45B0E441.2060903@xxxxxxx>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

I really don't understand why we need this level of generality and
complexity, in particular when a simple hypercall to query a domain's
width would do.  Or a simple, stupid version number in the shared
page.  We'll hardly end up with an unmanageable number of versions.

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

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] 32-on-64: pvfb issue, Keir Fraser

Next by Date:

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] HVM save restore clean/fix, Zhai, Edwin

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] 32-on-64: pvfb issue, Keir Fraser

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] 32-on-64: pvfb issue, Gerd Hoffmann

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] 32-on-64: pvfb issue