16 messages in com.xensource.lists.xen-ia64-devel[Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC...
FromSent OnAttachments
Dietmar Hahn20 Feb 2007 06:00.patch
Keir Fraser20 Feb 2007 06:36 
Dietmar Hahn20 Feb 2007 06:51 
Grzegorz Milos20 Feb 2007 11:02 
Dietmar Hahn21 Feb 2007 05:04 
Keir Fraser21 Feb 2007 05:51 
Dietmar Hahn27 Feb 2007 01:55 
Keir Fraser27 Feb 2007 02:51 
Mark Williamson27 Feb 2007 04:07 
Dietmar Hahn28 Feb 2007 00:20 
Dietmar Hahn28 Feb 2007 00:24 
Keir Fraser28 Feb 2007 00:37 
Keir Fraser28 Feb 2007 00:42 
Dietmar Hahn28 Feb 2007 01:05 
Dietmar Hahn28 Feb 2007 02:14 
Grzegorz Milos01 Mar 2007 14:07 
Subject:[Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH]mini-os: big-endian mini-os on ia64
From:Dietmar Hahn (diet@fujitsu-siemens.com)
Date:02/27/2007 01:55:23 AM
List:com.xensource.lists.xen-ia64-devel

Am Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2007 14:51 schrieb Keir Fraser:

On 21/2/07 13:04, "Dietmar Hahn" <diet@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:

I think the SWAP()'s are not that much. Maybe I can reduce this by moving some into the ia64-hypercall interface. What remain are the accesses to the ring buffers (not that simple in netfront because of the xen-macros). Perhaps some other guys contribute their opinion.

I would actually argue that they're scattered all over the place and it will be hard to be sure that we have all the SWAPs we need and only the SWAPs we need. Particularly to continue ensuring that given that most development will be with minios having same endianness as Xen.

In short: it's ugly and unless someone really cares it will rot.

-- Keir

Now that the environment (libxc, xen-ia64) is ready to start a simple BE domU, I want to start a new discussion about BE able mini-os. What I want to have is a mini-os, where everybody whith ia64 hardware can build and run a BE mini-os beside LE mini-os (or other domU's) on xen-ia64 hypervisor. If you say at this point: no interrest for such a thing, than we can stop this discussion here. On the other side we should discuss how this can be realized. My target with the first patch was to minimize the impact on common mini-os source as small as possible and that the hypervisor shouldn't be touched by BE/LE problematic. Therewidth I did only the SWAPs at the right place in the mini-os. Maybe that SWAPs are ugly but the SWAPs have to be done somewhere and the best place in my opinion is in the domU at the lowest level functions on top of the hypervisor interface - in gnttab, xenbus, xencons, event. The other way would be building wrappers around all the accesses to domU/hypervisor interfaces and hide the SWAPs there. But this seems a little bit overkill at this stage. Oh and yes I will care about this in the mini-os! Thanks.

Dietmar