[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-ia64-devel] 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 Attachment:
xen4elilo.patch Attachment:
elilo-3.4.11.xen.patch Attachment:
elilo.README _______________________________________________ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |