Hi Fred/Anthony --
Thanks for continuing to work on this. There's probably
no reason for every developer to go through the recipe
to rebuild "xelilo.efi" and I don't particularly want to
do it again (for the third time) myself. So could you
provide an ftp address from where I can download a known
working xelilo.efi?
I will check in both the patch info and the working
xelilo.efi (if it is not too big) into the tree.
Also, I believe Brett asked for a patch relative to 3.5.xxx?
Thanks,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yang, Fred [mailto:fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:27 AM
> To: Matt Chapman; Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
> Cc: Xu, Anthony; Brett Johnson; xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Patch for loading module
>
> Attached please find Elilo patches to both elilo-3.4-11 and Xen-ia64
> The patches support following elilo.enty as well as backward
> compatible
> to elilo-3.4-11
> The test has been done upto loading initrd, but obviousely it doesn't
> match the domain image
>
> image=XenoLinux.uncompressed
> <==
> Domain0 uncompressed image
> label=xen
> vmm=xen.gz
> <== Xen compressed image
> initrd=initrd-2.6.9-5.7.EL.img
> <== initrd file to match "image"
> read-only
> append="com2=57600,8n1 console=com2
> sched=bvt --
> nomca console=ttyS1,576 00 console=tty0 root=/dev/sda3"
> -Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Chapman [mailto:matthewc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:38 PM
> To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
> Cc: Yang, Fred; Xu, Anthony; Brett Johnson;
> xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] PLEASE REPLY and RE: [PATCH] Patch for
> loading module[2of2]
>
> 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