This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] domain builder for ReactOS

To: Ge van Geldorp <gvg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] domain builder for ReactOS
From: Christian Limpach <Christian.Limpach@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 00:08:51 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 23:08:49 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200506022251.j52Mp9ov032472@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <3d8eece20506021534605d3af5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200506022251.j52Mp9ov032472@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:51:09AM +0200, Ge van Geldorp wrote:
> > From: Christian Limpach 
> >
> > Why do you think that you need a different builder?  
> > Especially since you're going to use a bootloader anyway, 
> > your actual kernel image file can be of whatever format you 
> > like...  If your main/only struggle is with the ELF format, 
> > then please consider adding support for additional loaders in 
> > the existing builder.
> Yes, the reason for the different builder is that our bootloader is not in
> ELF format.

Well, your webpage says that right now you're building your loader as an
ELF image and I guess use the linux builder?  Can't you stick with that?
Even if it's inconvenient to only being able to build the loader on Linux,
how often does the loader need to be rebuilt?

> I'm not sure the linux ELF loader and my loader are going to
> have much code in common, which is why I opted for a different builder.

The elf loading functions in xc_linux_build make up less than half of
the file -- ideally you should be able to use the setup_guest and
xc_linux_build functions without too many changes.

I'd suggest that you move the elf loading functions into a separate
file (xc_load_elf.c) and put your load functions in a different file.

You'll also need to add a probe function to identify the type of the
image, which could then return a pointer to a struct with function
pointers to parseelfimage/loadelfimage in the elf case and then call
these through the pointers.

> However, I don't see major problems adding the code to the Linux builder, so
> if that's what you prefer, that's how I'll do it.

The other question is whether it makes much sense to add a loader/builder
before there's a kernel?


Xen-devel mailing list