Xen devel - Oct 2006 - [PATCH][ACM] 2/3: make ACM architecture independent (Xen part)

This patch moves the multiboot-specific part of the ACM initialization
into its own file. Any architecture that implements the multiboot
specification should be able to reuse this function for booting a
machine with an ACM policy.
It also moves the x86-specific functions into an x86 include file.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@us.ibm.com>





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

On 18/10/06 16:57, "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> This patch moves the multiboot-specific part of the ACM initialization
> into its own file. Any architecture that implements the multiboot
> specification should be able to reuse this function for booting a
> machine with an ACM policy.
> It also moves the x86-specific functions into an x86 include file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@us.ibm.com>
Hmm... It''s a single small function with a fairly nasty interface. I
don''t
think making it arch-independent is a good idea. I already shrunk the
function down a bit when applying Tristan''s patch so it''s not
actually very
big.

My main issue is that it is intertwined with the variables that setup.c
maintains to track multiboot modules. It would be cleaner to make more of
setup.c arch-independent and carry the acm_multiboot function with it. All
the while the rest is inside arch/x86, I think acm_multiboot should stay
there too.

I did take your third patch, by the way (tools alignment change).

 -- Keir



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

xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com wrote on 10/18/2006 12:35:59 PM:
> 
> 
> On 18/10/06 16:57, "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> 
> > This patch moves the multiboot-specific part of the ACM initialization
> > into its own file. Any architecture that implements the multiboot
> > specification should be able to reuse this function for booting a
> > machine with an ACM policy.
> > It also moves the x86-specific functions into an x86 include file.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@us.ibm.com>
> 
> Hmm... It''s a single small function with a fairly nasty interface.
I
don''t
> think making it arch-independent is a good idea. I already shrunk the
> function down a bit when applying Tristan''s patch so it''s
not actually
very
> big.
> 
> My main issue is that it is intertwined with the variables that setup.c
> maintains to track multiboot modules. It would be cleaner to make more 
of
> setup.c arch-independent and carry the acm_multiboot function with it. 
All
> the while the rest is inside arch/x86, I think acm_multiboot should stay
> there too.
I''ll see what I can do.
> 
> I did take your third patch, by the way (tools alignment change).
You took parts 1 and 3, but not 2? In that case I would have to rip out 
some of the alignment parts from the 2nd part and send them again.

  Stefan
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

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

On 18/10/06 18:22, "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > I did take your third patch, by the way (tools alignment change).
> 
> You took parts 1 and 3, but not 2? In that case I would have to rip out
some
> of the alignment parts from the 2nd part and send them again.
Isn¹t it rather gross that the two parts are so tightly coupled?

 -- Keir



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