Is it intentional that with the new ELF code notes unknown to the hypervisor lead to dom0 being unbootable? The old code simply queried for those notes mattering at all for dom0, but din''t care about any others... Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jan Beulich wrote:> Is it intentional that with the new ELF code notes unknown to the hypervisor > lead to dom0 being unbootable? The old code simply queried for those notes > mattering at all for dom0, but din''t care about any others...No. -- Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
But wouldn''t that change behavior for domU-s then in an undesirable way? I would have thought that at best this should be conditional upon __XEN__. Even better, I would think, would be to split the note namespace to distinguish - general required notes - general optional notes - dom0 required notes - etc. Jan>>> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de> 09.02.07 14:17 >>>Jan Beulich wrote:> Is it intentional that with the new ELF code notes unknown to the hypervisor > lead to dom0 being unbootable? The old code simply queried for those notes > mattering at all for dom0, but din''t care about any others...No. -- Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jan Beulich wrote:> But wouldn''t that change behavior for domU-s then in an undesirable way?Why? dom0 and domU should have the same behavior ...> Even better, I would think, would be to split the note namespace to > distinguish > - general required notes > - general optional notes > - dom0 required notesPoint being? I''m not aware of any dom0-required note. And I don''t think splitting into required and optional is useful, especially as this is arch-dependent ... cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de> 09.02.07 15:00 >>> >Jan Beulich wrote: >> But wouldn''t that change behavior for domU-s then in an undesirable way? > >Why? dom0 and domU should have the same behavior ...I didn''t check how the old domU-related tools code behaved here, I just assumed the new code was based more on the old tools code than the hypervisor one, and hence old behavior might have been the one I had just seen. Regardless of that, the function shouldn''t return here, but rather continue the loop.>> Even better, I would think, would be to split the note namespace to >> distinguish >> - general required notes >> - general optional notes >> - dom0 required notes > >Point being? I''m not aware of any dom0-required note. And I don''t >think splitting into required and optional is useful, especially as this >is arch-dependent ...To e.g. catch notes the presence of which is necessary (i.e. a newer hypervisor will misbehave in its absence), but ignore such that only provide hints in certain directions. At present I also don''t know of any dom0 required note, yet if any splitting is done, then all possible (i.e. foreseeable) groups should be allowed for. As you say, the list should also include an arch-specific range. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jan Beulich wrote:>>>> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de> 09.02.07 15:00 >>> >> Jan Beulich wrote: >>> But wouldn''t that change behavior for domU-s then in an undesirable way? >> Why? dom0 and domU should have the same behavior ... > > I didn''t check how the old domU-related tools code behaved here, I just > assumed the new code was based more on the old tools code than the > hypervisor one, and hence old behavior might have been the one I had > just seen.Old domU builder was cut&pasted from old dom0 builder three years ago ;)> Regardless of that, the function shouldn''t return here, but rather > continue the loop.No, the function parses just one note, the loop is one level up.>>> Even better, I would think, would be to split the note namespace to >>> distinguish >>> - general required notes >>> - general optional notes >>> - dom0 required notes >> Point being? I''m not aware of any dom0-required note. And I don''t >> think splitting into required and optional is useful, especially as this >> is arch-dependent ... > > To e.g. catch notes the presence of which is necessary (i.e. a newer > hypervisor will misbehave in its absence), but ignore such that only > provide hints in certain directions.I don''t think there are such notes. domU''s are supposed to be compatible in both directions.> At present I also don''t know of any dom0 required note, yet if any > splitting is done, then all possible (i.e. foreseeable) groups should be > allowed for. As you say, the list should also include an arch-specific > range.Shouldn''t happen. Starting with 3.0.3 dom0 kernel has no hypervisor dependencies any more, only xen kernel and tools must match version-wise. cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel