On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:22:57PM +0100, 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. Why not? What is involved in it? IMHO I believe anybody would welcome a new clean design that solves this thorny problem? _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
