[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56B3D070.9000607@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:28:00 -0500
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
roger.pau@...rix.com, x86@...nel.org, GLin@...e.coma,
bblanco@...mgrid.com, pmonclus@...mgrid.com, bp@...e.de,
hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] xen/hvmlite: Bootstrap HVMlite guest
On 02/04/2016 03:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> Ah, well here lies the issue. As per hpa subarch was not designed for defining
> a hypervisor, but rather at least subarch PC (0) [should be used if the
> hardware is] "enumerable using standard PC mechanisms (PCI, ACPI) and doesn't
> need a special boot flow". Does that follow the definition of HVMlite?
Yes. HVMlite is going to use baremetal boot flow.
> OK great. That still means the code will run, and if we can avoid that
> why not. I am fine with annotating this as future work to help. Let me
> then ask as well, how about the rest of the code during and after
> startup_32() and startup_64() -- are we sure that's all safe ?
I can't be sure, all I can say is that so far I haven't seen any problems.
-boris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists