From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Paesold Subject: Re: Deficiencies in guest bootloader design Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:19:59 +0200 Message-ID: <443EA45F.4040002@gmx.at> References: <014901c65f06$a9501c80$d801a8c0@zaphod> <20060413151044.GB23641@leeni.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060413151044.GB23641@leeni.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ewan Mellor Cc: Xen Devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ewan Mellor wrote: >> Is there anyone working on bootloader improvements? If not, is a change to >> move the bootloader stuff from xm to Xend acceptable? In that case I could >> try to come up with a patch. > > Certainly such a patch would be accepted. There was a long thread discussing > bootloaders recently -- you should dig it out of the archive and see what the > conclusions were -- there seem to be a few competing ideas for bootloader > support in Xen (pygrub and domUloader being the two prominent ones). If you > were going to put some effort into this, it would be appreciated by a number > of the Xen users, certainly. I have read through the threads about pygrub/domUloader in the archives, although I have not found discussion about the initial inclusion of pygrub. I mostly see discussions about the actual features of the boot loaders themselves, not really about integration relevant to my question. I see the most important question is that of interaction with the user, since that seems to be the main reason for bootloader being invoked from xm instead of Xend. I will study the code to see what can be done. I appreciate any input or help! Best Regards, Michael