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.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:37:48 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Grzegorz Milos <gm281@xxxxxxxxx>, Xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:37:59 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200702280925.14124.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: AcdbE7me+DBTh8cGEdu40AAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH]mini-os: big-endian mini-os on ia64
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
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.

>> 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.

 -- Keir



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