El 9/2/16 a les 9:14, Jan Beulich ha escrit: >>>> On 05.02.16 at 16:45, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: >> El 5/2/16 a les 14:13, Jan Beulich ha escrit: >>> But >>> even then - wouldn't what I've read on the other thread mean >>> at least the filename should be put there (as kind of the first >>> command line element)? >> >> Really? I didn't get that impression at all, what's the filename useful >> for anyway? > > This largely depends on whether you mean to mimic multiboot1 or > multiboot2. Remember the placeholder people have to add to > certain grub2 invocation lines? I think that's a result of their > attempt to had through a file name. But indeed - I've never > understood what it's good for until this request came about: How > else would the consumer know which module is which if there's no > signature or alike inside the file? Iirc someone suggested (in the > context of the discussion here) that Linux might look for "initrd" > in the filename to identify that one. Seems fragile to me, but may > be the only alternative if not demanding multiple modules to be > ordered in a certain way.
OK, right now xl/libxl only allows passing one module that's considered the initram/ramdisk from Linux PoV. Other OSes that use the pv loader don't pass any module at all AFAIK. The problem is that there's no way to specify a command line parameter for modules, and I think in order to make use of this we should add such option, instead of hard coding "initrd" as the command line of the first module. However, I don't think any of this should prevent this patch from being accepted. If someone has interest in implementing a way to pass module command line arguments please feel free to do it, this patch just sets the right ABI for doing so, although it's unused at the moment. Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel