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
initrd=xenlinux # backward compatible
# choice B
# grub and Xen/x86 compatible
# grub and Xen/x86 compatible and probably
# the best to document for Xen/ia64?
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