Re: [Xen-devel] RFC/Patch: Support for other bootloaders

[Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> So far as the difference between the two proposed solutions goes, I
> think it can be summarised as:
> 
> mbootpack: Shim between bzImage bootloader interface and Multiboot.
>          Has some assembler in it, but keeps the unpleasant
>              hack separate from the Xen codebase.
> 
> mkzen: Add sort-of-bzImage interface support to Xen.
>        No assembler, but not self-contained; puts hack into Xen code.
> 
> Not much between them, but I'm still with mbootpack, since it doesn't
> need Xen to change to accomodate the bodge, and because it doesn't
> invent yet another x86 boot protocol.
> 

It just seems to me that extreme measures are being taken so that one
can say that Xen changes are not required.  If this is going to be a
blessed utility for booting Xen it is in effect a part of Xen, whether
or not it is in the Xen bk repository, whether or not it is in the Xen
code proper.  My opinion is that it's better to support it in a
first-class way that to try to sweep it under the rug and pretend it
doesn't exist.  

Regardless, mbootpack works just as well so go with it.

-- 
Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part