>>> 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
