This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] PLEASE REPLY and RE: [PATCH] Patch for loading modu

To: "Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] PLEASE REPLY and RE: [PATCH] Patch for loading module[2of2]
From: "Yang, Fred" <fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:44:50 -0700
Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:42:51 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-topic: [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