On 04/01/13 14:22, Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 11:26:43AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 27/12/12 18:02, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3 at citrix.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 27/12/2012 07:53, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>>> The syscall ABI still has the wrong semantics. >>>>> >>>>> Aka totally unmaintainable and umergeable. >>>>> >>>>> The concept of domU support is also strange. What does domU support even mean, when the dom0 support is loading a kernel to pick up Xen when Xen falls over. >>>> There are two requirements pulling at this patch series, but I agree >>>> that we need to clarify them. >>> It probably make sense to split them apart a little even. >>> >>> >> >> Thinking about this split, there might be a way to simply it even more. >> >> /sbin/kexec can load the "Xen" crash kernel itself by issuing >> hypercalls using /dev/xen/privcmd. This would remove the need for >> the dom0 kernel to distinguish between loading a crash kernel for >> itself and loading a kernel for Xen. >> >> Or is this just a silly idea complicating the matter? > > This is impossible with current Xen kexec/kdump interface. > It should be changed to do that. However, I suppose that > Xen community would not be interested in such changes. I don't see why the hypercall ABI cannot be extended with new sub-ops that do the right thing -- the existing ABI is a bit weird. I plan to start prototyping something shortly (hopefully next week) for the Xen kexec case. David
