Re: Removing the XEN_COMPAT_030001 cruft

[Jean-Yves Migeon <jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost>]

Le 26/06/2012 10:49, David Brownlee a écrit :
> On 26 June 2012 10:27, Jean-Yves Migeon <jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost> 
> wrote:
> > Le 26/06/2012 10:02, Manuel Bouyer a écrit :
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:24:56AM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > Now that -6 has been branched, I would like to remove the
> > > > XEN_COMPAT_030001 code that lies here and there in the source 
> > > > tree.
> > > >
> > > > Reasons are following:
> > > > - first, it simplifies code reading by making the P2M/M2P 
> > > > translations
> > > > the same for dom0 and domU, without having to play with 
> > > > XPMAP_OFFSET
> > > > tricks for old domU images.
> > > > - it forces the use of the hypercall page. The int 0x82 for 
> > > > hypercalls
> > > > has disappeared with newest revision of Xen (4.0 or 4.1 if memory 
> > > > serves
> > > > right).
> > > > -  It allows the merge of the xpmap_mtop and the mfn_to_pfn 
> > > > functions in
> > > > one go, using the xen_p2m_*() API Christoph and I drafted some 
> > > > years ago
> > > > [1]
> > > > - last but not least, all supported Linux distros out there either 
> > > > use a
> > > > heavily patched Xen 3.0.3 hypervisor (RHEL 5), or simply made the 
> > > > jump
> > > > to Xen 4 (Debian, Ubuntu, ...). 3.0.1 and down are not really 
> > > > maintained
> > > > any more IMHO, and should be avoided for security reasons.
> > > >
> > > > Opinions?
> > >
> > > Isn't it still required by some amazon setup ?
> >
> >
> > When reported (or queried via "version" hypercall), the oldest 
> > hypervisor I
> > have seen is 3.0.3 (same one as RHEL 5 probably).
>
> Would it be reasonably easy to test boot an amazon instance after the
> change to confirm?

That is part of my Xen tests, yes.

--
Jean-Yves Migeon