Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH]mini-os: big-endian mini-os on ia64

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 28/2/07 08:25, "Dietmar Hahn" <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I don;t think we'd have a problem with incorportaing support for ia64-be if
>> there's a good reason for it (a better reason than "because it's
>> possible").
> I understand this.

Doing this for an OS that has pre-existing dependencies on being big-endian
(like your BS2000, presumably) I can understand. But I don't see why adding
contrary-endianness support to minios is part of your roadmap when your end
goal is the porting of a completely different OS? If it's part of a
work-scoping exercise then maybe that's understandable, but I don't see why
we'd necessarily take the resulting minios modifications upstream.

>> It would be less ugly and I think less prone to missing some open-coded
>> accesses. Open-coding the SWAP()s is pretty grim.
> Yes I see this. It's simply more work and more code is touched but from the
> design view it's a lot better.
> If this is OK for you, I will try this and send a new patch as a proposal.

*If* we decide that this is a worthwhile exercise at all for minios, then I
think this has to be the way to go.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel