(Sorry, just realised I never replied to this)
On Wed, 13 Apr, at 01:59:10PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> Is this header compatible with the ELF header? Con both co-exist in the
> same binary without issues?
Nope, they cannot. We get away with mixing bzImage headers and PE/COFF
headers for the
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 14/04/16 21:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >>> But to make that work you have to emulate EFI firmware in the
> >>>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:03:07PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 15/04/16 16:30, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:59:16AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>> No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite usi
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Are you telling me that HVMLite has no dead code issues ?
>
> You said earlier that baremetal has dead code issue. Then by extensions
> _any_ execution pa
On 15/04/16 16:30, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:59:16AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite using EFI
>>> be optional ? That way if you already support EFI that can b
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:59:16AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite using EFI
> > be optional ? That way if you already support EFI that can be used on
> > your entires with some small modi
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:50:25AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 14/04/16 21:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite using EFI
> > be optional ? That way if you already support EFI that can be used on
> > your entires with some small modi
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 14/04/16 21:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> But to make that work you have to emulate EFI firmware in the
>>> hypervisor. Is that work you are signing up for?
>>
>>
Hello Luis,
On 14/04/16 21:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:2
On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:53:47AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> So more
On 14/04/16 21:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:53:47AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> So more
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:12:01PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:38:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > This has nothing to do with dominance or anything nefarious, I'm asking
> > > simply for a full engineering evaluation of all possibilities, with
> > > t
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > On
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:38:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with dominance or anything nefarious, I'm asking
> > simply for a full engineering evaluation of all possibilities, with
> > the long term in mind. Not for now, but for hardware assumptions which
> > a
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > VGA
> This has nothing to do with dominance or anything nefarious, I'm asking
> simply for a full engineering evaluation of all possibilities, with
> the long term in mind. Not for now, but for hardware assumptions which
> are sensible 5 years from now.
There are two different things in my mind about
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:42:15AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 13/04/16 19:54, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:05:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> >> wrote:
> >>> Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > On
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:53:47AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>> So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On
On 13/04/16 20:14, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +02
On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way into Linux
>>> in a more streamlined fashion bringing it closer to the
On 13/04/16 19:54, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:05:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>> wrote:
>>> Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there
>>> as
>>> an option as well. I'll Cc you
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:29:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:29:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:12:08AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > >
> > > > What
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:35:27PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> wrote:
> >> I want to clarify now then what our exist path is, do we need to care
> >> about legacy crap ?
> >
> > exist? Existing?
>
> Sorry I meant 'exit path'.
>
> > A
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:29:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:12:08AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >
> > > What would be gained by using the same entry but having two different boot
> > >
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
>> I want to clarify now then what our exist path is, do we need to care
>> about legacy crap ?
>
> exist? Existing?
Sorry I meant 'exit path'.
> And by 'legacy crap' you mean 'pvops' - then the answer is no.
Not pvops -- but hardwar
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:01:18PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:22:23PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:14:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:22:23PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:14:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way into Linux
> > in a more streamlined fashion bringing it closer to the bare metal
> > boot entry, why *would* we add
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:14:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > On Fri, A
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > OK thanks
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:25:03PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:12:25AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> [...]
> > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there
> > as
> > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that.
>
> I
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > OK thanks for the clarification -- still no custom entries for Xen!
> > > We should stri
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:29:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:12:08AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 08/04/16 22:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:40:08AM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> > >> On 06/04/16 03:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:05:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there
> > as
> > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that.
>
> I'm not sure how th
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > OK thanks for the clarification -- still no custom entries for Xen!
> > We should strive for that, at the very least.
> >
> > You do have a point about the lega
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:12:08AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 08/04/16 22:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:40:08AM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> >> On 06/04/16 03:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>>
> >>> * You don't need full EFI emulation
> >>
> >> I think needi
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way into Linux
> in a more streamlined fashion bringing it closer to the bare metal
> boot entry, why *would* we add another boot entry to x86, even if
> its small and self contained ?
We
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:15:15AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr, at 11:02:02AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >
> > With my FreeBSD committer hat:
> >
> > The FreeBSD kernel doesn't contain an EFI entry point, it just contains one
> > single entry point that's used for both legacy BIOS
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> For 1. we'd basically be using the PE/COFF file format with the EFI
> ABI as an OS agnostic boot protocol, but not as a full firmware
> runtime environment.
But we still have the issue here that the now the EFI entry point in
Linux has to fi
On Wed, 13 Apr, at 11:15:15AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> For 1. we'd basically be using the PE/COFF file format with the EFI
> ABI as an OS agnostic boot protocol, but not as a full firmware
> runtime environment.
To add some balance to this proposal (since there's no such thing as a
free lunch) so
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:12:25AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
[...]
> Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there as
> an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that.
I don't see how this is relevant to the conversation that's going on:
How many x86
On Wed, 13 Apr, at 12:03:12PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> I don't get this, the "reset/shutdown" hypercall requires the following
> steps from Dom0 (it's not as simple as calling a hypercall):
>
> The way to perform a full system power off from Dom0 is different than
> what's done in a DomU gue
On Wed, 13 Apr, at 11:02:02AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> With my FreeBSD committer hat:
>
> The FreeBSD kernel doesn't contain an EFI entry point, it just contains one
> single entry point that's used for both legacy BIOS and EFI. Then the
> FreeBSD loader is the one that contains the differen
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there as
> an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that.
I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything.
What we're talking about is how to get from Xen t
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:02:40PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
[...]
> One place that struck me as suitable for this "hypercall in an EFI
> service stub" approach is the trouble with doing ACPI reboot as
> documented here,
>
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-02/msg01609.html
>
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:16:14PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to
> > > deal
> > > with the HVMLite specif
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:02:52PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 08/04/16 22:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:40:08AM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> >>> On 06/04/16 03:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> >>
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:16:14PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to
> > > deal
> > > with the HVMLite specif
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 08/04/16 22:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:40:08AM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> On 06/04/16 03:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
* You don't need full EFI emulation
>>>
>>> I think needing any EFI em
On 08/04/16 22:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:40:08AM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 06/04/16 03:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>> * You don't need full EFI emulation
>>
>> I think needing any EFI emulation inside Xen (which is where it would
>> need to be for do
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:11:30PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:40:27AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Boris sent out the first HVMLite series of patches to add a new Xen guest
> > type
> > February 1, 2016 [0]. We've been talking off list with a few folks now over
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:16:14PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to deal
> > with the HVMLite specific entry, it would also still mean diverging from
> > ARM's
> > own EFI entry onl
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:23:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:05:16PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:02:40PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > On Wed, 06 Apr, at 12:07:36PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So rather than
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:40:08AM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 06/04/16 03:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > * You don't need full EFI emulation
>
> I think needing any EFI emulation inside Xen (which is where it would
> need to be for dom0) is not suitable because of the increase in
>
On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to deal
> with the HVMLite specific entry, it would also still mean diverging from ARM's
> own EFI entry only position, which I'd like to clarify that ARM has no custom
> Xen entry, we
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:11:30PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:40:27AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Boris sent out the first HVMLite series of patches to add a new Xen guest
> > type
> > February 1, 2016 [0]. We've been talking off list with a few folks now over
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:07:36PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > A huge summary of the discussion over EFI boot option for HVMLite is now on
> > a
> > wiki [2], below I'll just provide the outline of the discussion. Consider
> > this a
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:05:16PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:02:40PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Apr, at 12:07:36PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> > >
> > > So rather than make a new entry point which does just the minimal
> > > amount of work to run o
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:02:40PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr, at 12:07:36PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > So rather than make a new entry point which does just the minimal
> > amount of work to run on a software interface (Xen), you want to take
> > an interface designed for hard
On Wed, 06 Apr, at 12:07:36PM, George Dunlap wrote:
>
> So rather than make a new entry point which does just the minimal
> amount of work to run on a software interface (Xen), you want to take
> an interface designed for hardware (EFI) and put in hacks so that it
> knows that sometimes some EFI s
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:40:27AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Boris sent out the first HVMLite series of patches to add a new Xen guest type
> February 1, 2016 [0]. We've been talking off list with a few folks now over
> the prospect of instead of adding yet-another-boot-entry we instead fix
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> A huge summary of the discussion over EFI boot option for HVMLite is now on a
> wiki [2], below I'll just provide the outline of the discussion. Consider
> this a
> request for more public review, feel free to take any of the items below
On 06/04/16 03:40, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> * You don't need full EFI emulation
I think needing any EFI emulation inside Xen (which is where it would
need to be for dom0) is not suitable because of the increase in
hypervisor ABI.
I also still do not understand your objection to the curre
67 matches
Mail list logo
