From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: New Xen boot infrastructure proposal Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:09:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1369235394.21246.179.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> References: <363082f7-72f9-41cc-a5b4-75ce235e6493@default> <1369140724.21246.62.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20130522142751.GC25607@debian70-amd64.local.net-space.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130522142751.GC25607@debian70-amd64.local.net-space.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Daniel Kiper Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, keir@xen.org, jbeulich@suse.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 16:27 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:52:04PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 03:36 -0700, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > > It means > > > that at this stage it is worth to create completely new > > > boot structure which is not linked so tightly with any boot > > > protocol. It should contain all needed stuff, be architecture > > > independent as much as possible and easily extensible. > > > > Is this proposal intended to form a protocol between the bootloader and > > More or less. So we are expecting bootloaders to all implement this Xen specific, multiboot2-alike protocol? That doesn't seem terribly likely to happen. IMHO we'd be far better off working with the multiboot folks to define extensions to multiboot2 and/or multiboot3 which cover this additional information -- especially given that nothing much there seems to be Xen specific. Ian.