WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH]mini-os: big-endian mini-os

To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH]mini-os: big-endian mini-os on ia64
From: Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:05:53 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Grzegorz Milos <gm281@xxxxxxxxx>, Xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:04:55 -0800
Domainkey-signature: s=s768; d=fujitsu-siemens.com; c=nofws; q=dns; b=IbVZ8IslxOEGBSaeyuqwhCLM1dl/KDDnzVa/I/OGAmLpslb9jDB9wi0ZH6q5Vc5XJSbNqPxoFkM6xIpbEn4sKkaxiUMi32c7xZOMo3ttH7tvfrT95Q5Kneomv4u/PQyi;
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C20AEFDC.2FA4%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C20AEFDC.2FA4%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5
Am Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2007 09:37 schrieb Keir Fraser:
> On 28/2/07 08:25, "Dietmar Hahn" <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I don;t think we'd have a problem with incorportaing support for ia64-be
> >> if there's a good reason for it (a better reason than "because it's
> >> possible").
> >
> > I understand this.
>
> Doing this for an OS that has pre-existing dependencies on being big-endian
> (like your BS2000, presumably) I can understand. But I don't see why adding
> contrary-endianness support to minios is part of your roadmap when your end
> goal is the porting of a completely different OS? If it's part of a
> work-scoping exercise then maybe that's understandable, but I don't see why
> we'd necessarily take the resulting minios modifications upstream.
I did the mini-os port to ia64 as a starting point to get familiar with the 
internals of xen. The big-endian stuff in mini-os was a "work-scoping 
exercise" for me, but after getting big-endianess extensions into ia64-xen 
this was an offer to all developers interested in testing/developing the 
big-endian feature in xen-ia64.

> >> It would be less ugly and I think less prone to missing some open-coded
> >> accesses. Open-coding the SWAP()s is pretty grim.
> >
> > Yes I see this. It's simply more work and more code is touched but from
> > the design view it's a lot better.
> > If this is OK for you, I will try this and send a new patch as a
> > proposal.
>
> *If* we decide that this is a worthwhile exercise at all for minios, then I
> think this has to be the way to go.
I understand this.
Thanks.

Dietmar.

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel