This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Paravirtualizing bits of acpi access

To: 'Jeremy Fitzhardinge' <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Paravirtualizing bits of acpi access
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:40:05 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cihula, Joseph" <joseph.cihula@xxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>, "linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:40:35 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <49C91832.8090300@xxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <49C484B7.20100@xxxxxxxx> <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD60E5E877B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49C88647.8080404@xxxxxxxx> <200903241045.19194.bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx> <49C91832.8090300@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acmspe9WzAY24uTHQOyFrquv7ozvKAAMhAwg
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Re: Paravirtualizing bits of acpi access
>From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [mailto:jeremy@xxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:28 AM
>>   It looks like suspend becomes a weird hybrid of
>> ACPI and Xen, which makes it harder to reason about future suspend
>> changes.  And all this discussion about 640k-1M and dom0 identity
>> mapping and "there's no special effort to remap it" and whether
>> there are conflicts makes me nervous.  There's no way all those
>> assumptions can be remembered or verified five years down the road.
>Well, I think Kevin was over-complicating things in his own mind.  The 
>upshot is that the normal "running on bare metal" code can do 
>its normal 
>thing, and if we happen to be running under Xen we can make it 
>a no-op.  
>In other words, the acpi developers don't really need to worry 
>about the 
>"running under Xen case", for the most part.

Yes, I'm just trying to think about corner case which is however
not true per Jeremy's expanation. There's nothing to affect bare
metal running. :-)


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>