qemu-dm should be quite portable.
 -- Keir
On 16/9/08 20:30, "Mike Sun" <msun@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Keir. It is the qemu-dm. Hmm, not my dilemma is whether it'd
> be a fairly easy thing to incorporate the newer qemu-dm into a 3.1.x
> branch... I've made some major changes to the shadow page table code
> for my work and would rather not try and merge them into 3.2.x if I
> don't have to at this point.
>
> Mike
>
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> On 13/9/08 03:52, "John Levon" <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 04:42:22PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 12/9/08 16:33, "Mike Sun" <msun@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but are you saying that all HVM
>>>>> guests are now resumable and there no longer needs to be any check for
>>>>> that as was done by Brendan Cully's earlier patch requests?
>>>> 
>>>> Correct. All HVM PV drivers must support suspend cancellation (i.e.,
>>>> resume). And without PV drivers, resume is as simple as just continuing
>>>> execution of the guest from where it left off!
>>> 
>>> Uh, when was this requirement introduced?
>> 
>> Since guest resume was supported by hypervisor and tools. We've never
>> supported resume of HVM guests with 'uncooperative' PV drivers installed.
>> 
>> -- Keir
>> 
>> 
>> 
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel