On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 18:48 +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > Hello, > > I've Cced a bunch of people who have expressed interest in the HVMlite > design/implementation,
I think "HVMlite" has now reached the point where we should start the transition from PVH (classic) to PVH (hvmlite) naming rather than introducing yet another guest type terminology where end users are going to see it (the 4.7 release, specifications in tree, etc). So IMHO HVMlite should be referred to as "PVH" throughout, with the original implementation retconned to be called "PVH (classic)" or "Prototype-PVH" or something. A short paragraph explaining the background might be appropriate. Calling them PVHv1 and PVHv2 would also be tolerable. This should extend to all the documentation etc as well as IMHO to patch postings (in that case "PVH (hvmlite)" might be appropriate in places where there might be confusion until "PVH (classic)" really goes away). The point is that dmlite was always supposed to be a reimplementation of the PVH concept using the lessons learned from the "come at it from the PV end" attempt, it's not (from a user PoV) a new operating mode. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
