Re: [Xen-devel] Domain Save Image Format proposal (draft B)

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Frediano Ziglio writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Domain Save Image Format proposal 
(draft B)"):
> [stuff]

I think this is in danger of becoming a bikeshed issue.  I am
unconvinced by the arguments made on the other side.  The performance
and code complexity implications of byteswapping the image header are
IMO minimal.  So I'm going to put my foot down and say this:

David is entirely correct to specify a fixed endianness for the image
header.  As a tools maintainer I would accept patches for David's
format (subject to the other comments that are being discussed).  I
would be very reluctant to accept patches for a similar format with a
variable-endianness image header.  I would certainly not accept
patches which purport to implement a nominally-fixed-endianness format
but where the implementation is not in fact portable to the other
endianness.

Ian.

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