>>> On 21.11.17 at 13:24, wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Jan Beulich
>> Much depends on whether you think "guest" == "DomU". To me
>> Dom0 is a guest, too.
>
> That’s not how I’ve ever understood those terms.
>
> A guest at a hotel is someone who is served, and who does not have (legal
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 03/16] SUPPORT.md: Add some x86 features"):
> Much depends on whether you think "guest" == "DomU". To me
> Dom0 is a guest, too.
Not to me. I'm with George. (As far as I can make out his message,
which I think was sent with HTML-style quoting which some Citrix thi
On Nov 21, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Jan Beulich
mailto:jbeul...@suse.com>> wrote:
On 21.11.17 at 11:42,
mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com>> wrote:
On 11/21/2017 08:09 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.11.17 at 16:41,
mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com>> wrote:
+### x86/PVH guest
+
+Status: Supported
+
+P
>>> On 21.11.17 at 11:42, wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 08:09 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.11.17 at 16:41, wrote:
>>> +### x86/PVH guest
>>> +
>>> +Status: Supported
>>> +
>>> +PVH is a next-generation paravirtualized mode
>>> +designed to take advantage of hardware virtualization support whe
On 11/21/2017 08:09 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.11.17 at 16:41, wrote:
>> +### x86/PVH guest
>> +
>> +Status: Supported
>> +
>> +PVH is a next-generation paravirtualized mode
>> +designed to take advantage of hardware virtualization support when possible.
>> +During development this was
>>> On 13.11.17 at 16:41, wrote:
> +### Host ACPI (via Domain 0)
> +
> +Status, x86 PV: Supported
> +Status, x86 PVH: Tech preview
Are we this far already? Preview implies functional completeness,
but I'm not sure about all ACPI related parts actually having been
implemented (and see also
Including host architecture support and guest types.
Signed-off-by: George Dunlap
---
CC: Ian Jackson
CC: Wei Liu
CC: Andrew Cooper
CC: Jan Beulich
CC: Stefano Stabellini
CC: Konrad Wilk
CC: Tim Deegan
CC: Roger Pau Monne
---
SUPPORT.md | 53 ++
