From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Introduce specification for pv
 bootloader chainloading paths/formats.
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:16:34 +0100
Message-ID: <1409094994.28009.58.camel@hellion.org.uk>
References: <1409078818-4034-1-git-send-email-ijc@hellion.org.uk>
	<20140826230244.GH5739@riva.ucam.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140826230244.GH5739@riva.ucam.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
Cc: 759018@bugs.debian.org, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 00:02 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 07:46:58PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > +## Protocol
> > +
> > +### x86
> > +
> > +The bootloader binary should be an ELF file of the appropriate type
> > +(32- or 64-bit). It should contain the standard Xen ELF notes allowing
> > +it to be loaded by the Xen toolstack domain builder (TBD: Reference).
> > +
> > +### ARM
> > +
> > +TBD
> > +
> > +## Paths
> > +
> > +The second stage bootloader should be installed into the guest filesystem as:
> > +
> > + * `/boot/xen/pvboot-<ARCH>.elf`
> 
> It just occurred to me that not every (future) platform may necessarily
> want this to be ELF, so maybe we shouldn't hardcode that in the
> architecture-independent part of the name.  If you think this might be a
> reasonable concern then you might want to adjust this.

This crossed my mind too (it might even be the case on arm*, not sure
yet). My thinking was that this spec would already need adjusting for
this (to describe the non-ELF thing, if nothing else) so this it could
be tweaked then too.

Or I could e.g. omit all the vestigial ARM stuff and explicitly list the
two x86 options, bypassing the whole question of future arches, who
would then need to add themselves to this doc.

>   Otherwise LGTM.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>

Thanks.