Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] multiboot2 protocol support

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 18.01.17 at 18:38, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 13.01.17 at 20:21, <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This is a series based on v11 of Daniel Kiper's
>>> "x86: multiboot2 protocol support" series. It aims to collect up all the
>>> fixes and changes that Andrew Cooper, Jan Beulich and myself discovered in
>>> code review and testing on actual hardware. I've had problems with the
>>> relocation portion of the series so I've dropped it as all the hardware I
>>> am needing to support presently for my $EMPLOYER does not load anything at
>>> the 1mb mark. To me this adds MB2 support for all pieces of hardware that
>>> don't have things located at 1mb so its an incremental step. I've also
>>> dropped the early command line conversion to C as it was done in support
>>> of the relocation changes and therefore not necessary. In the end my goal
>>> is to help Daniel out by providing the portion of the series that works
>>> on half a dozen physical machines I've tested with and integrates all
>>> changes as discussed on the v11 thread. The reason I am posting this is that
>>> Daniel has said he won't be able to address feedback and issues identified
>>> for another 2 weeks but my requirements from my $EMPLOYER are more immediate
>>> than that.
>>>
>>> You can pull this series from 
>>> https://github.com/cardoe/xen/tree/doug-mb2-v1 
>>>
>>> Daniel Kiper (4):
>>>   x86: add multiboot2 protocol support
>>>   efi: build xen.gz with EFI code
>>>   efi: create new early memory allocator
>>>   x86: add multiboot2 protocol support for EFI platforms
>>
>> Since this last patch continue to be controversial (and there's no
>> real point in committing the earlier three without the last one, as
>> only that one offers new functionality), so to be honest I'm not
>> sure this submission will accelerate anything. Iirc the main point
>> here is the not insignificant amount of new assembly code this
>> patch adds. Andrew - you've indicated you'd want to comment
>> on this and (of the original series) at least patch 11. When is
>> that going to happen?
> 
> What's controversial about it?

The not insignificant amount of assembly code it adds, when our
overall goal is to reduce the amount of assembly code. But
Andrew has meanwhile indicated he's okay for this to go in as is.
I will want to go over the whole patch once more though before
committing it.

Jan


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