Re: [Xen-devel] [kvmarm] boot-wrapper: simple multi module loading support

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>]

On 03/09/12 16:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 16:00 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 03/09/12 14:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> Until we know what bootloaders are going to become common in the ARM
>>> servers world it hard to know who we should be working with to define a
>>> proper protocol going forward and which bootloaders to supply patches
>>> for etc. If anyone has any pointers that would be very useful.
>>
>> I don't have any useful insight about bootloaders (I tend to hate them
>> all ;-), but what we (KVM/ARM) need is something that implements the
>> "boot in HYP mode" thing, as described here:
>>
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2012-August/002829.html
>>
>> From a discussion with Stefano last week, it looks like this protocol
>> can fit Xen as well, but it would be nice to have a formal Ack before we
>> push this into RMK's patch system.
> 
> Yes, Xen needs this "boot in hyp mode" functionality as well, which AIUI
> is main core of the proposal. The bits about leaving a stub hypervisor
> behind when the kernel then drops to SVC mode is really an internal
> Linux/KVM implementation detail. Xen expects to be launched in hyp mode
> and will stay there, it launches the domain 0 kernel in svc mode (so
> under Xen the kernel never sees hyp mode).
> 
> The proposal in
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2012-August/002828.html
> seems consistent with Xen's requirements to me, both for the hypervisor
> itself and the guest kernels (including dom0).

Right, this is exactly what I wanted to know. I just wanted to make sure
the kernel and Xen didn't have diverging requirements.

Sorry for hijacking this thread... ;-)

Thanks,

        M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel