From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/23] x86: make Xen early boot code relocatable Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:24:31 -0600 Message-ID: <55E08B3F020000780009DDCC__22192.9176980213$1440771970$gmane$org@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> References: <1437402558-7313-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <1437402558-7313-23-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <55DF28E6020000780009D6E4@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <20150827151054.GI10944@olila.local.net-space.pl> <55DF48FB020000780009D83F@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZVKa5-0006Ii-7v for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:24:37 +0000 In-Reply-To: <55DF48FB020000780009D83F@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Content-Disposition: inline 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: Juergen Gross , grub-devel@gnu.org, wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, roy.franz@linaro.org, ning.sun@intel.com, david.vrabel@citrix.com, phcoder@gmail.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, qiaowei.ren@intel.com, keir@xen.org, richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com, gang.wei@intel.com, fu.wei@linaro.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 27.08.15 at 17:29, wrote: > You're right, there's no such requirement on memory use in the spec. > But you're missing the point. Supporting grub2 on UEFI is already a > hack (ignoring all intentions EFI had from its first days). And now > you've found an environment where that hack needs another hack > (in Xen) to actually work. That's too much hackery for my taste, the > more that things on this system can (afaict) work quite okay (without > grub2, or with using its chainloader mechanism). It has been brought to my attention that the use of the work "hack" above could have been understood as an offense. It certainly wasn't meant so, and I'd like to apologize if it came over that way. I simply used it not finding a better term while writing; perhaps I could have used "misguided" and "workaround" respectively, but I'm not sure that would have been received much better. In any event - I didn't mean to insult you or anyone else. Jan