On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 12:03 +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> PVH dom0 is functionally very similar to PVH domU except for the
> domain
> builder and the added set of hypercalls available to it.
>
> The main concern with declaring it "Supported" is the lack of some
> features
> when compared to clas
On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 12:03:20PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> PVH dom0 is functionally very similar to PVH domU except for the domain
> builder and the added set of hypercalls available to it.
>
> The main concern with declaring it "Supported" is the lack of some features
> when compared to c
On 07/06/2024 11:03 am, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> PVH dom0 is functionally very similar to PVH domU except for the domain
> builder and the added set of hypercalls available to it.
>
> The main concern with declaring it "Supported" is the lack of some features
> when compared to classic PV dom0, hen
PVH dom0 is functionally very similar to PVH domU except for the domain
builder and the added set of hypercalls available to it.
The main concern with declaring it "Supported" is the lack of some features
when compared to classic PV dom0, hence switch it's status to supported with
caveats. List t
