[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xc_XXX_build - add parallel routines to support input via buffer rather than files

  • To: "Mark Williamson" <mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Ben Thomas" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:52:06 -0500
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:05:27 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=LvJvXBH8qhkaw7KTeiymIdTHnuy1Y7IskNLr4ySH1wA1PiKlVEXZLw0qIgeI08o3YofrBiMvplQn2GnizKzBK+29iPyWnKJu+/R5r4GFSrXEQ8htjOKwi1S63bozIX0UmnWLS1GzSPQZvAhTVs4he3GbRAwGtc26zHvF+OldMto=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

Hi Mark,

You had asked about this patch, and I wanted to give you an update.  I've submitted it twice, the second time with your suggestions incorporated.  I haven't received any direct or indirect feedback or comment at this point.  I haven't submitted enough patches at this point to be sure whether this means anything or not. At this point, though, it appears that it's not incorporated into the source tree. On the other hand, other patches I've submitted have just shown up without fanfare at some later point.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the xen-devel process and practices to know the line between helpful persistence and spamming the list, so at this point I'm leaning towards not resubmitting it yet again.

I welcome any feedback and suggestions,

On 1/16/06, Mark Williamson <mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd just like to add a +1 from me to the concept of an optional memory
interface to the building APIs.  I implemented something similar for domU
kexec support, and if something like this is available in the up-to-date
tree, I won't have to update that part of my original patch when we update
the sparse tree to 2.6.15 ;-)

One suggestion based on my experience:
the interface to setup_guest would seem to be cleaner if it *always* assumed
its taking inflated buffers for the initrd, as well as the kernel.  You can
just load and inflate the initrd in in the builder function (if necessary!)
as we do already for the kernel.

Would anyone object to this?  The interface to the rest of xc that you propose
sounds like a step in the right direction.


On Monday 16 January 2006 21:05, B Thomas wrote:
> I have a need to pass image and ramdisk via buffers, and not files.  I
> added some parallel routines so as not to disturb the existing APIs. This
> may, or may not, have been the correct choice, but it works.  In this
> patch, you'll find xc_linux_build_mem and xc_vmx_build_mem as the new
> interfaces, which accept buffer pointer/size arguments rather than filename
> arguments. The old interfaces remain (both in code and working status).
> Some internal shuffling was needed to accomodate this, which I've tried to
> minimize. I've tested most of this, the expection being IA64, which I don't
> have.
> -b

Dave: Just a question. What use is a unicyle with no seat?  And no pedals!
Mark: To answer a question with a question: What use is a skateboard?
Dave: Skateboards have wheels.
Mark: My wheel has a wheel!

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.