On 06/04/2021 09:19, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 01.04.2021 21:43, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 01/04/2021 09:44, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:31:07AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 01.04.2021 03:06, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>>>> And the obvious next question: is my EVE usecase esoteric enough that >>>>> I should just go ahead and do a custom GRUB patch or is there a more >>>>> general interest in this? >>>> Not sure if it ought to be a grub patch - the issue could as well >>>> be dealt with in Xen, by concatenating modules to form a monolithic >>>> initrd. >>> I would rather have it done in the loader than Xen, mostly because >>> it's a Linux boot specific format, and hence I don't think Xen should >>> have any knowledge about it. >>> >>> If it turns out to be impossible to implement on the loader side we >>> should consider doing it in Xen, but that's not my first option. >> Concatenating random things which may or may not be initrds is >> absolutely not something Xen should do. We don't have enough context to >> do it safely/sensibly. > Well, I wasn't suggesting anywhere to concatenate random things. > Instead I was envisioning a command line option giving us the > context we need (e.g. "initrd=3+5").
That's a massive layering violation, and incredibly fragile to the order of lines in the boot stanza. Either fix it by using a single monolithic initrd, which has worked perfectly well for the past 2 decades, or add a feature to grub to get initrd-like behaviour for MB2 too. I will object very strongly to any Xen patches trying to do this. ~Andrew
