On 07/04/15 13:00, Wei Liu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:34:34AM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 02/04/15 10:03, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 12:03 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> I propose that the libxc series be accepted independently of the libxl >>>> series. >>> That is most likely a good idea IMHO. >>> >>> What do you estimate the chances of the libxl bit being done for 4.6 to >>> be? >> I hope to have everything complete for 4.6, including removal of the >> legacy code. >> > Not sure what "legacy code" you're referring to, but we definitely want > to support 4.5 -> 4.6 migration so the "legacy code" might need to stay > for 4.6?
"legacy migration" is what currently exists. Backwards compatibility is provided by a short python script which converts legacy to v2. Once the libxl changes are complete, xc_domain_save.c and xc_domain_restore.c can be deleted, along with other assorted bits and pieces. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
