Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 00/11] xen: Initial kexec/kdump implementation

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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?

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