>>> On 31.08.15 at 21:49, wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 28.08.15 at 15:42, wrote:
>> > Now that said - do you have suggestions on how to make this work
>> > with GRUB in the picture?
>>
>> ... I don't think I'm the one to make suggestions on how t
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 28.08.15 at 15:42, wrote:
> > And I am not comfortable to say 'GRUB2+Xen cannot run on this hardware
> > because your firmware vendor is not following the EFI spec in spirit.'
>
> Well, not the least since I don't really agree w
>>> On 27.08.15 at 17:29, wrote:
> You're right, there's no such requirement on memory use in the spec.
> But you're missing the point. Supporting grub2 on UEFI is already a
> hack (ignoring all intentions EFI had from its first days). And now
> you've found an environment where that hack needs an
>>> On 28.08.15 at 15:42, wrote:
> And I am not comfortable to say 'GRUB2+Xen cannot run on this hardware
> because your firmware vendor is not following the EFI spec in spirit.'
Well, not the least since I don't really agree with this (albeit I can
see where you're coming from) ...
> Now that s
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 02:22:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.08.15 at 19:56, <426...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If you advocate direct booting ( no boot loader) on production machines I
> > wont argue much, as long as there is good recovery tools to deal with
> > failed boots (grub does th
On 28/08/15 07:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> Therefore I am very much +1 get grub working.
> Then you kind of misunderstood: I'm not against getting grub2
> working (i.e. patches prior to this one are fine in principle). What
> I'm against is hacking around firmware+grub2 combinations not
> suitable
>>> On 27.08.15 at 19:56, <426...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you advocate direct booting ( no boot loader) on production machines I
> wont argue much, as long as there is good recovery tools to deal with
> failed boots (grub does this very well, I am not aware of anything
> comparable that is pure ef
>>> On 27.08.15 at 20:04, wrote:
> On 27/08/15 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.08.15 at 17:10, wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 07:12:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 20.07.15 at 16:29, wrote:
> /* Copy bootstrap trampoline to low memory, below 1MB. */
> -
On 27/08/15 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.08.15 at 17:10, wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 07:12:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.07.15 at 16:29, wrote:
/* Copy bootstrap trampoline to low memory, below 1MB. */
-mov $sym_phys(trampoline_start),%es
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.08.15 at 17:10, wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 07:12:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 20.07.15 at 16:29, wrote:
> >> > /* Copy bootstrap trampoline to low memory, below 1MB. */
> >> > -mov $sym_ph
>>> On 27.08.15 at 17:10, wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 07:12:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 20.07.15 at 16:29, wrote:
>> > /* Copy bootstrap trampoline to low memory, below 1MB. */
>> > -mov $sym_phys(trampoline_start),%esi
>> > +lea sym_offset(tramp
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 07:12:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 20.07.15 at 16:29, wrote:
[...]
> > /* Copy bootstrap trampoline to low memory, below 1MB. */
> > -mov $sym_phys(trampoline_start),%esi
> > +lea sym_offset(trampoline_start)(%ebp),%esi
> >
>>> On 20.07.15 at 16:29, wrote:
> - %fs register is filled with segment descriptor which describes memory
> region
> with Xen image (it could be relocated or not);
This is too fuzzy. Please be very precise which region it is that %fs
is supposed to point to (so that reviewers have a chanc
> > > trampoline_bios_setup:
> > > +mov %ebp,%esi
> > > +
> > > +/* Initialise GDT and basic data segments. */
> > > +add %ebp,sym_offset(gdt_boot_descr_addr)(%esi)
> > > +lgdtsym_offset(gdt_boot_descr)(%esi)
> > > +
> > > +mov $BOOT_DS,%ecx
>>> On 14.08.15 at 16:37, wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:32:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 14.08.15 at 15:59, wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:49:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 14.08.15 at 13:52, wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rz
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:32:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.08.15 at 15:59, wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:49:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 14.08.15 at 13:52, wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Jul
>>> On 14.08.15 at 15:59, wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:49:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 14.08.15 at 13:52, wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> >> > diff --git a/
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:49:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.08.15 at 13:52, wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h b/xen/include
>>> On 14.08.15 at 13:52, wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h
>> > index 87b3341..27481ac 100644
>> > --- a/xen/inc
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > Every multiboot protocol (regardless of version) compatible image must
> > specify its load address (in ELF or multiboot header). Multiboot protocol
> > compati
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Every multiboot protocol (regardless of version) compatible image must
> specify its load address (in ELF or multiboot header). Multiboot protocol
> compatible loader have to load image at specified address. However, there
> is no guar
21 matches
Mail list logo
