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-ia64-devel

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

To: Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH]mini-os: big-endian mini-os on ia64
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:51:54 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Grzegorz Milos <gm281@xxxxxxxxx>, Xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:51:16 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200702271055.46514.dietmar.hahn@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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcdaXUr+icOrucZQEdupjAAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH]mini-os: big-endian mini-os on ia64
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
On 27/2/07 09:55, "Dietmar Hahn" <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> What I want to have is a mini-os, where everybody whith ia64 hardware can
> build and run a BE mini-os beside LE mini-os (or other domU's) on xen-ia64
> hypervisor. If you say at this point: no interrest for such a thing, than we
> can stop this discussion here.

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").

> The other way would be building wrappers around all the accesses to
> domU/hypervisor interfaces and hide the SWAPs there. But this seems a little
> bit overkill at this stage.

It would be less ugly and I think less prone to missing some open-coded
accesses. Open-coding the SWAP()s is pretty grim.

 -- Keir


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