Re: [Xen-devel] Bug: Windows 2003 fails to install on xen-unstable tip

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 29 April 2013 09:38
> To: Ian Campbell
> Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit; Andrew Cooper; Paul Durrant; Roger Pau Monne;
> George Dunlap; Eddie Dong; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir (Xen.org); Tim
> (Xen.org)
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Bug: Windows 2003 fails to install on xen-unstable
> tip
> 
> >>> On 29.04.13 at 10:20, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 07:53 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 26.04.13 at 18:56, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > So does the flag actually require *improper* behaviour from the RTC
> >> > (emulated or otherwise)?
> >>
> >> Yes. Specifically it requires new interrupts to get raised even
> >> when the guest never reads REG_C (i.e. not only when
> >> RTC_IRQF transitions from 0 to 1).
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > 23965:6880bfc48504 says that Windows 8 requires this table, but does it
> > also require us to set this bit? If our RTC emulation does require an
> > ACK then it seems we should simply omit the bit (but not the table),
> > will that work with both Win2k3 and Win8?
> 
> For Win2k3 it'll work (as I had tried out on Friday). But whether
> any tests require the bit to be set for them to pass I don't know.
> Which is why I included the original authors of that hvmloader
> side change...
> 

IIRC Microsoft said that the table must be present for certification of Windows 
8/Server 2012 but I can't remember whether they said that either of the bits 
had to be set.

  Paul

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