On 30/7/06 11:41, "Rusty Russell" <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> I think this has been useful discussion, but I think we're starting to
> go in circles.
I agree and your proposal is ok, although personally I think it's not a very
good solution because (1) is not really true and given the option of doing
(3), I think most everybody will pick (3), which makes (1) and (2) obsolete.
christian
> (1) We can make startup_32 work for every known and future reasonable
> hypervisor as well as native, by testing if ring isn't 0 and paging is
> enabled and jumping to the paravirt entry path.
>
> (2) Xen 3.0's boot process uses %esi and sets all other regs to 0. We
> should not break this. If we use %ebx to indicate what paravirt_ops to
> use, and assign Xen 0, this works fine. We only clobber %ebx, %eax and
> %esp before calling paravirts[%ebx]->init().
>
> (3) If a hypervisor wants another entry point, this scheme doesn't
> prohibit it, of course. If every hypervisor does this, we've wasted
> some effort, but not for lack of trying.
>
> My question for Eric is: will this fit with kexec (which I know v.
> little about)?
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
