Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] xen: Break multiboot (v1) dependency and add multiboot2 support

[Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:15:56AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 24.09.14 at 19:48, <roy.franz@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This patch series breaks multiboot (v1) protocol dependency and adds
> >> multiboot2 support. It lays down the foundation for EFI + GRUB2 + Xen
> >> development. Detailed description of ideas and thoughts you will
> >> find in commit message for every patch. If something is not obvious
> >> please drop me a line.
> >>
> >> Most of the requested things are fixed but there are still some minor
> >> outstanding issues (multiboot2 tags generation, excessive amount of casts
> >> in xen/arch/x86/boot/reloc.c, etc.; please check commit messages for
> >> more details). If something is not fixed yet it means that I do not have
> >> good idea how to do that. In case you spot something which was mentioned
> >> during previous review and still think that your comment is valid
> >> in particular case please notify me.
> >>
> >> Below you can find reply for Konrad's questions in regards to
> >> exception request for Xen 4.5 release.
> >>
> >>> Couple of questions:
> >>>
> >>>  - Since this is mostly XBI code, is there a lot of overlap with the ARM/x86
> >>>    refactoring of the EFI code? As in, will it require a lot of
> >>>    rebasing/fixing it up?
> >>
> >> I did not checked that right now. However, Roy once told me that this should
> >> not be very big issue because overlap is not so big. Please check this email
> >> for more details:
> > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-08/msg01173.html
> >>
> >> Sadly, it was sent more then one month ago so maybe something has changed.
> >> Roy, any comments on that?
> > There aren't fundamental conceptual conflicts, but there will be quite
> > a bit of refactoring/rebasing to do.  Most of my patchset is
> > re-organizing
> > x86/efi/boot.c, so rebasing it on this patchset would be a significant
> > amount of work.   My guess is that the first 10 of the 13 patches
> > in my series would need be be completely redone, as the code they are
> > rearranging has been changed by your series.
> > I think that it would be much less work for you to re-base your series
> > on mine, than the other way.  The x86/efi/boot.c changes
> > are a relatively small part of your series, but are the bulk of mine.
> >
> > I should have another version of my patchset out today.
>
> And when looking at both series later today in detail, I'm certainly
> going to give priority to Roy's as I expect that one to be largely
> ready to go in now (or at least a sufficiently large initial part of it).

OK. Roy, do you expect any bigger changes in your code right now?
May I rebase safely my work on latest release of your patches?
Should I care about anything in special way?

Daniel