From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755341Ab3LRRc6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:32:58 -0500
Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:46851 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753388Ab3LRRc5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:32:57 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,508,1384300800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="85837492"
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:32:22 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
X-X-Sender: sstabellini@kaball.uk.xensource.com
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
        Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
        <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] allow xenfb initialization for hvm guests
In-Reply-To: <20131218152719.GI4934@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312181730290.8667@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312171738550.8667@kaball.uk.xensource.com> <1387367482.27441.123.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <20131218151422.GF4934@phenom.dumpdata.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312181517400.8667@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
 <20131218152719.GI4934@phenom.dumpdata.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-DLP: MIA2
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:18:45PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:51:22AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 17:53 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > There is no reasons why an HVM guest shouldn't be allowed to use xenfb.
> > > > > As a matter of fact ARM guests, HVM from Linux POV, can use xenfb.
> > > > > Given that no Xen toolstacks configure a xenfb backend for x86 HVM
> > > > > guests, they are not affected.
> > > > 
> > > > and if a toolstack did I think it would be reasonable to expect the
> > > > kernel to at least try and drive it!
> > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> > > 
> > > I think David Vrabel is going to Nack it unless there is a test-case.
> > > 
> > > I am saying that because in his previous statement for Wei's multi-page
> > > patches was that if there are no users (or at least no test-cases) then
> > > it should not be part of the kernel.
> > 
> > Well there is one: ARM. There isn't one on x86.
> > 
> > http://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=138730150806639&w=2
> 
> Ah I missed that. I think that this particular patch can wait till the
> next merge window?

Surely it can wait.


> Would it make sense to have the XenFB also work on x86? Is it difficult
> to make it work on it?

The issue is that you need stdvga anyway in order to boot and xenfb is
not much better than stdvga after all (except that it doesn't require
QEMU's pc machine emulator).