>>> On 11.01.16 at 15:06, <phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13.11.2015 10:50, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-11-13 at 12:04 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >>>> How do you express modules other than kernel+initrd in that >>>> scheme, without grub needing to be aware of any new addition we >>>> may find necessary going forward? >>>> >>> >>> Are modules used by Xen self-identifying? Is it enough to simply pass >>> Xen kernel list of binary blobs or Xen kernel must be told what these >>> binary blobs are? If they are self identifying, why arm needs to be >>> passed module type in the first place? >> >> At first Xen/ARM required the bootloader to identify, but that was since >> identified as causing madness and fixed by having Xen/ARM do as Xen/x86 >> does and figure things out for itself, but I failed to communicate this >> clearly and things got implemented on the grub side under the old >> assumptions. >> > This changes a lot. This removes most of hurdles towards uniformity. Are > you ok with replacing xen_kernel/xen_xsm/... with just xen_module and > dropping type altogether? > Do you think that it makes sense to have xen_initrd in order to have > in-memory initrd concatenation like baremetal counterpart? In either > case we can add it later. I'd rather not have a command than to change > its meaning later. > Jan, does it address your concerns?
It improves things a bit, but I'd really like to not see any xen_ prefixed commands at all in grub2 - after all Xen should just be an ordinary multiboot client. Jan _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
