Re: [MirageOS-devel] Cleaning up the Mini-OS namespace; coordinating development

[Martin Lucina <martin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

anil@xxxxxxxxxx said:
> > This makes sense to me.  We use upstream MiniOS now (with some patches to
> > support installation as a library), so we don't need to do anything
> > special to benefit from your patches if you submit them upstream.  Have
> > you sent an RFC to xen-devel to get other people's reaction to this?  I
> > can't imagine it'll be too contentious if other uses (such as the qemu
> > stub domain) are also fixed up to support this.
> 
> Incidentally, it might help to regenerate your patch stream over the
> https://github.com/mirage/xen repository.  This is a direct mirror of
> the upstream Xen trees, and we base our Mirage-specific MiniOS off this
> tree.  Also CCing Adam Wick from HalVM as this might help him.

I've not yet proposed an  RFC to xen-devel. I think that The patches need a
bit more work for that to happen:

- As you mentioned, they should be rebased off the upstream mini-os rather
  than the old-ish copy we have in rumprun-xen.

- The patches only rename the bare minumum of APIs and symbols needed by
  rumprun-xen. Notably, I don't rename some macros like
  local_irq_{save|restore} and so on. For these changes to be usable by
  everyone involved we would probably want to do a more thorough
  namespacing?

Martin

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel