[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <B9C06CDB-FCF4-4EE5-BDC1-E910CF37631E@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 08:01:06 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
CC: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/12] xen/hvmlite: Bootstrap HVMlite guest
On January 23, 2016 7:34:33 AM PST, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>>However, this stub belongs in Linux, not in the Xen toolstack. That
>>way, when the Linux boot protocol is modified, both sides can be
>>updated
>>accordingly.
>
>I would add that this idea is borrowed from the EFI stub code that
>Linux has which also constructs the boot parameter structure when
>invoked (either from firmware or from EFI shell).
There is a huge difference though: EFI is a widely used multivendor industry standard. You are taking about something Xen-specific, and which in good Xen tradition isn't even documented, apparently (did we ever get documentation for the hypervisor ABI?)
Asking "why burden Xen with something Linux-specific" is a pretty extreme case of the tail wagging the dog.
That being said, before any code can be put anywhere, it needs to be written. We can argue where to put it later. We went through this process with the EFI stub, too: a standalone implementation (efilinux) first.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists