Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Julien Grall wrote: > > On 14/04/16 21:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>> But to make that work you have to emulate

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Julien Grall wrote: > > On 14/04/16 21:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>> But to make that work you have to emulate EFI firmware in the >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:03:07PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 15/04/16 16:30, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:59:16AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >> On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:03:07PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 15/04/16 16:30, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:59:16AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >> On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Are you telling me that HVMLite has no dead code issues ? > > You said earlier that baremetal has dead code issue. Then by extensions > _any_ execution

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Are you telling me that HVMLite has no dead code issues ? > > You said earlier that baremetal has dead code issue. Then by extensions > _any_ execution

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 15/04/16 16:30, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:59:16AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite using EFI >>> be optional ? That way if you already support EFI that can

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 15/04/16 16:30, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:59:16AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite using EFI >>> be optional ? That way if you already support EFI that can

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:59:16AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite using EFI > > be optional ? That way if you already support EFI that can be used on > > your entires with some small

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:59:16AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite using EFI > > be optional ? That way if you already support EFI that can be used on > > your entires with some small

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:50:25AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 14/04/16 21:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite using EFI > > be optional ? That way if you already support EFI that can be used on > > your entires with some small

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:50:25AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 14/04/16 21:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > No, I meant to ask, would it be possible to make booting HVMLite using EFI > > be optional ? That way if you already support EFI that can be used on > > your entires with some small

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Julien Grall wrote: > On 14/04/16 21:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> But to make that work you have to emulate EFI firmware in the >>> hypervisor. Is that work you are

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Julien Grall wrote: > On 14/04/16 21:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> But to make that work you have to emulate EFI firmware in the >>> hypervisor. Is that work you are signing up for? >> >>

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

Hello Luis, On 14/04/16 21:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

Hello Luis, On 14/04/16 21:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:53:47AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 14/04/16 20:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:53:47AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > So

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 14/04/16 21:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:53:47AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 14/04/16 21:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:53:47AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > So

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:12:01PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:38:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > This has nothing to do with dominance or anything nefarious, I'm asking > > > simply for a full engineering evaluation of all possibilities, with > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:12:01PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:38:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > This has nothing to do with dominance or anything nefarious, I'm asking > > > simply for a full engineering evaluation of all possibilities, with > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:38:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > This has nothing to do with dominance or anything nefarious, I'm asking > > simply for a full engineering evaluation of all possibilities, with > > the long term in mind. Not for now, but for hardware assumptions which > >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:38:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > This has nothing to do with dominance or anything nefarious, I'm asking > > simply for a full engineering evaluation of all possibilities, with > > the long term in mind. Not for now, but for hardware assumptions which > >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:56:53PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

> This has nothing to do with dominance or anything nefarious, I'm asking > simply for a full engineering evaluation of all possibilities, with > the long term in mind. Not for now, but for hardware assumptions which > are sensible 5 years from now. There are two different things in my mind about

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

> This has nothing to do with dominance or anything nefarious, I'm asking > simply for a full engineering evaluation of all possibilities, with > the long term in mind. Not for now, but for hardware assumptions which > are sensible 5 years from now. There are two different things in my mind about

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:42:15AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 13/04/16 19:54, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:05:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez > >> wrote: > >>> Also, x86 does have a

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:42:15AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 13/04/16 19:54, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:05:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez > >> wrote: > >>> Also, x86 does have a history of short DT

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:53:47AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> So more to it, if the EFI entry

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:53:47AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:01:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 13/04/16 20:14, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 13/04/16 20:14, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way into Linux >>> in a more streamlined fashion

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 13/04/16 20:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way into Linux >>> in a more streamlined fashion bringing it closer to

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 13/04/16 19:54, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:05:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >> wrote: >>> Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there >>> as >>> an option

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 13/04/16 19:54, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:05:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >> wrote: >>> Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there >>> as >>> an option as well. I'll Cc you

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:29:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:08:01PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:29:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:29:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:12:08AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > > > > > What would be gained by using the same entry but having two different boot > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:56:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:29:51PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:12:08AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > > > > > What would be gained by using the same entry but having two different boot > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> I want to clarify now then what our exist path is, do we need to care >> about legacy crap ? > > exist? Existing? Sorry I meant 'exit path'. > And by 'legacy crap' you mean 'pvops' - then the answer is no.

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> I want to clarify now then what our exist path is, do we need to care >> about legacy crap ? > > exist? Existing? Sorry I meant 'exit path'. > And by 'legacy crap' you mean 'pvops' - then the answer is no. Not pvops -- but

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:22:23PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:14:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:22:23PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:14:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way into Linux > > in a more streamlined fashion bringing it closer to the bare metal > > boot entry,

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:44:54PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way into Linux > > in a more streamlined fashion bringing it closer to the bare metal > > boot entry, why *would* we add

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > OK

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 08:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > OK

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:25:03PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:12:25AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > [...] > > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there > > as > > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that. > > I

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:25:03PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:12:25AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > [...] > > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there > > as > > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that. > > I

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:05:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there > > as > > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that. > >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:05:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there > > as > > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that. > > I'm not sure how

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > OK thanks for the clarification -- still no custom entries for Xen! > > We should strive for that, at the very least. > > > > You do have a point about the

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > OK thanks for the clarification -- still no custom entries for Xen! > > We should strive for that, at the very least. > > > > You do have a point about the

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way into Linux > in a more streamlined fashion bringing it closer to the bare metal > boot entry, why *would* we add another boot entry to x86, even if > its small and

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > So more to it, if the EFI entry already provides a way into Linux > in a more streamlined fashion bringing it closer to the bare metal > boot entry, why *would* we add another boot entry to x86, even if > its small and self contained ?

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > For 1. we'd basically be using the PE/COFF file format with the EFI > ABI as an OS agnostic boot protocol, but not as a full firmware > runtime environment. But we still have the issue here that the now the EFI

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > For 1. we'd basically be using the PE/COFF file format with the EFI > ABI as an OS agnostic boot protocol, but not as a full firmware > runtime environment. But we still have the issue here that the now the EFI entry point in Linux has to

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:12:25AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: [...] > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there as > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that. I don't see how this is relevant to the conversation that's going on: How many x86

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:12:25AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: [...] > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there as > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that. I don't see how this is relevant to the conversation that's going on: How many x86

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, 13 Apr, at 12:03:12PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > I don't get this, the "reset/shutdown" hypercall requires the following > steps from Dom0 (it's not as simple as calling a hypercall): > > The way to perform a full system power off from Dom0 is different than > what's done in a DomU

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, 13 Apr, at 12:03:12PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > I don't get this, the "reset/shutdown" hypercall requires the following > steps from Dom0 (it's not as simple as calling a hypercall): > > The way to perform a full system power off from Dom0 is different than > what's done in a DomU

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there as > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that. I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything. What we're talking about is

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Also, x86 does have a history of short DT use. Just pointing that its there as > an option as well. I'll Cc you on some thread about that. I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything. What we're talking about is how to get from Xen

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:02:40PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: [...] > One place that struck me as suitable for this "hypercall in an EFI > service stub" approach is the trouble with doing ACPI reboot as > documented here, > > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-02/msg01609.html >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:02:40PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: [...] > One place that struck me as suitable for this "hypercall in an EFI > service stub" approach is the trouble with doing ACPI reboot as > documented here, > > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-02/msg01609.html >

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:16:14PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > > On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to > > > deal > > > with the HVMLite

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:16:14PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > > On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to > > > deal > > > with the HVMLite

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:16:14PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > > On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to > > > deal > > > with the HVMLite

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:58:54PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:16:14PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > > On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to > > > deal > > > with the HVMLite

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:16:14PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to deal > > with the HVMLite specific entry, it would also still mean diverging from > > ARM's > > own EFI entry

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:16:14PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to deal > > with the HVMLite specific entry, it would also still mean diverging from > > ARM's > > own EFI entry

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:23:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:05:16PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:02:40PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > On Wed, 06 Apr, at 12:07:36PM, George Dunlap wrote: > > > > > > > > So rather

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:23:47PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:05:16PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:02:40PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > On Wed, 06 Apr, at 12:07:36PM, George Dunlap wrote: > > > > > > > > So rather

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to deal > with the HVMLite specific entry, it would also still mean diverging from ARM's > own EFI entry only position, which I'd like to clarify that ARM has no custom > Xen entry,

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On 07/04/16 19:51, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > While Andrew's position is right in that perhaps only Xen tools have to deal > with the HVMLite specific entry, it would also still mean diverging from ARM's > own EFI entry only position, which I'd like to clarify that ARM has no custom > Xen entry,

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:07:36PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > A huge summary of the discussion over EFI boot option for HVMLite is now on > > a > > wiki [2], below I'll just provide the outline of the discussion.

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:07:36PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > A huge summary of the discussion over EFI boot option for HVMLite is now on > > a > > wiki [2], below I'll just provide the outline of the discussion. Consider > > this

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, 06 Apr, at 12:07:36PM, George Dunlap wrote: > > So rather than make a new entry point which does just the minimal > amount of work to run on a software interface (Xen), you want to take > an interface designed for hardware (EFI) and put in hacks so that it > knows that sometimes some EFI

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, 06 Apr, at 12:07:36PM, George Dunlap wrote: > > So rather than make a new entry point which does just the minimal > amount of work to run on a software interface (Xen), you want to take > an interface designed for hardware (EFI) and put in hacks so that it > knows that sometimes some EFI

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > A huge summary of the discussion over EFI boot option for HVMLite is now on a > wiki [2], below I'll just provide the outline of the discussion. Consider > this a > request for more public review, feel free to take any

Re: [Xen-devel] HVMLite / PVHv2 - using x86 EFI boot entry

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > A huge summary of the discussion over EFI boot option for HVMLite is now on a > wiki [2], below I'll just provide the outline of the discussion. Consider > this a > request for more public review, feel free to take any of the items below