"vmm=" is better, though we were think "vmmodule" which is not clean
enough.
So it will be "vmm="
-Fred
Matt Chapman wrote:
> I like "hypervisor=" or "hvimage=", or how about about "vmm=" or
> "preload=" if you don't want to use the word hypervisor ? This
> functionality will be useful for other hypervisors too (such as
> vNUMA), so I'd rather not call it "xenimage"...
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:24:58AM -0700, Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs
> Fort Collins) wrote:
>> I just talked to Brett Johnson, the maintainer for elilo.
>> My suggestion of having initrd= and module= be synonyms
>> doesn't work well with the elilo parser. However,
>> he prefers a solution that AFAIK has not yet been proposed:
>>
>> - Leave image= for the Linux kernel image.
>> - Leave initrd= for the Linux kernel's initrd
>> - Add a NEW keyword, xenimage=, to specify the xen binary.
>>
>> He says that the module= proposal is already Xen-specific;
>> he doesn't see any other uses for it on the horizon. The
>> term "module" is also very vague and doesn't describe what
>> it is being used for. So, he says, why not just be explicit
>> that we are booting Xen and leave the image= and initrd=
>> keywords with the same Linux meaning. Thus:
>>
>> label=xen
>> xenimage=xen
>> image=xenlinux
>> initrd=initrd.img
>>
>> (and if we don't want to explicitly encode the term "Xen"
>> in the keyword, we could use "hvimage=" or "hv=" or "hypervisor="**
>> instead.)
>>
>> Brett's solution seems the best to me. It will also
>> work quite nicely for a transparently paravirtualized
>> system: If xenimage= is specified but the file is not
>> found, just load and boot image= which will boot normal Linux.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> On a related note: Anthony, Brett said that he would much
>> prefer to see a patch against elilo v3.5-pre1 as there are
>> additional bug fixes in that base.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> ** probably don't want to use "hypervisor=" since the
>> word has been trademarked by a certain big blue company :-)
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Yang, Fred [mailto:fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10:45 AM
>>> To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins); Xu, Anthony
>>> Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] PLEASE REPLY and RE: [PATCH]
>>> Patch for loading module[2of2]
>>>
>>> Backward compability issue is only happened on "deployed"
>>> product, not the "in development" project as xen/ia64. Why need so
>>> much "options"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) wrote:
>>>> Well, so far the community is overwhelmingly in favor of B...
>>>>
>>>> Which is OK with me. I've come around to being OK with this
>>>> after thinking on it overnight. I was uncomfortable with
>>>> losing the backward compatibility, but if this is going
>>>> to happen, now is the best time to do that while Xen/ia64 has few
>>>> users.
>>>>
>>>> One other thought I had overnight though:
>>>>
>>>> Both the domain0 image and the initrd image could be
>>>> considered parameters to Xen. So suppose that "initrd="
>>>> and "module=" are simply aliases for each other and the
>>>> first two files specified as either module or initrd
>>>> are passed (in order) as parameters to Xen. This would
>>>> not only be backwards-compatible with existing Xen elilo.conf
>>>> files, but would be more compatible with grub. So
>>>> all of the following do the right thing:
>>>>
>>>> # choice A
>>>> image=xen
>>>> initrd=xenlinux # backward compatible
>>>> #no initrd
>>>>
>>>> # choice B
>>>> image=xen
>>>> module=xenlinux
>>>> initrd=initrd.img
>>>>
>>>> # grub and Xen/x86 compatible
>>>> image=xen
>>>> module=xenlinux
>>>> #no initrd
>>>>
>>>> # grub and Xen/x86 compatible and probably
>>>> # the best to document for Xen/ia64?
>>>> image=xen
>>>> module=xenlinux
>>>> module=initrd.img
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Xu, Anthony [mailto:anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 10:19 PM
>>>>> To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins); Yang, Fred
>>>>> Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Patch for loading module[2of2]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Elilo is a gerernal OS loader,it doesn't and doesn't need to
>>>>>>> know presence of domain0, For elilo, xen.gz is a OS kernel,
>>>>>>> initrd= it's Os's initial ramdisk, module= is Os's parameter,
>>>>>>> we should keep all this meaning, we shouldn't make elilo
>>>>>>> special just for xen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, module= is OS's parameter, but domain0 is not
>>>>>> really a parameter.
>>>>> From the view of Elilo, xen is an OS, domain0 is a parameter to
>>>>> xen. As far as how to handle this parameter, it's up to xen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
>> Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home