Re: [Xen-devel] New Xen boot infrastructure proposal

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 22.05.13 at 18:47, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 04:16:30PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 22.05.13 at 17:01, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > If we stick to current MBI I am not able to pass (in sensible way),
>> > from preloader to __start_xen(), e.g. ACPI and EFI stuff from multiboot2
>> > protocol.
>> 
>> Why? You get handed a list (almost like an array) of items, and you'd
>> pass the base address instead of the base address of the multiboot
>> structure that we pass right now, together with an indicator which
>> of the two it is. Then __start_xen() has to adopt its behavior to this.
>> Not a big deal afaict.
> 
> Won't you have to do a bunch of 'if (multibootv1) { use_this_offset } else
> if (multibootv2) { use this other offset }' in the code to support
> both formats?

Yes, if this became unwieldy, I would favor the single copy approach.
Or the alternative of having the initial parts of __start_xen() split off
into two clones or prefixed by additional C code (i.e. basically the
approach the current EFI boot code is using).

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel