RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] Meeting Summary taken from Xen-ia64 NextSteps Discussion during Xen Summit

["Yang, Fred" <fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx>]

Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 22:13 -0800, Yang, Fred wrote:
> 
>> 1. Physical Memory support for Domain0
>>      * PPC port has the similar P2M issue as Xen-ia64
>>      * Group agreed P2M is the route to take, the detail
>> implementation can be between P2M & VP approaches to change XenLinux
>> as  less as possible
> 
>    I thought I remember hearing that VP was the goal, but P2M has many
> similarities with VP.  I know Dan briefly mentioned this in the BOF,
> but we stuck with the P2M notation, presumably because of lack of
> time.  Can anyone explain how we jumped back to P2M when it seemed
> clear after the ia64 session that both PPC and ia64 were headed
> towards VP? 

During the meeting, the VP may be the prefered approach since it won't
change XenLinux but it may not necessarily solved all the problem.  That
is the reason I put down the notes of "implementation can be between P2M
& VP approaches to change XenLinux as  less as possible"
-Fred


> 
>>      * To merge P2M into mainline code may cause Xen-ia64-unstable
>> to be buggy or unstable for a period of time.
>>         Since this is a must feature to go, we should merge the code
>> and get community to work together to get system stablized
> 
>    I think there needs to be some qualification here.  There are
> likely to be bugs and regressions (hopefully few), but we need to
> ensure some significant degree of functionality is retained before
> integrating into the mainline.  The memory model support is critical
> for development to continue, so it's certainly a very high priority
> for inclusion. 
Ditto!


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel