[Xen-merge] status - Xen Source

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

http://lists.xen.org/

To:

"xen-merge" <xen-merge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject:

[Xen-merge] status

From:

"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:35:33 +0100

Delivery-date:

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:33:35 +0000

Envelope-to:

www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

List-help:

<mailto:xen-merge-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>

List-id:

xen-merge <xen-merge.lists.xensource.com>

List-post:

<mailto:xen-merge@lists.xensource.com>

List-subscribe:

<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-merge>, <mailto:xen-merge-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>

List-unsubscribe:

<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-merge>, <mailto:xen-merge-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Sender:

xen-merge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thread-index:

AcWd0ej+2FtoGFeLScmOi6R9cmzAJQ==

Thread-topic:

status

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[Xen-merge] status, Ian Pratt <= Re: [Xen-merge] status, Chris Wright Re: [Xen-merge] status, Martin J. Bligh Re: [Xen-merge] status, Andi Kleen

Previous by Date:

Re: [Xen-merge] arch/i386/mach-xen/mm/highmem.c indentical, Keir Fraser

Next by Date:

Re: [Xen-merge] status, Chris Wright

Previous by Thread:

[Xen-merge] FW: vmware's virtual machine interface, Ian Pratt

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-merge] status, Chris Wright

Indexes:

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