From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grzegorz Milos Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH]mini-os: big-endian mini-os on ia64 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:08:05 +0000 Message-ID: <45E74EC5.6070300@cam.ac.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: Dietmar Hahn , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Xen-ia64-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> What I want to have is a mini-os, where everybody whith ia64 hardware can >> build and run a BE mini-os beside LE mini-os (or other domU's) on xen-ia64 >> hypervisor. If you say at this point: no interrest for such a thing, than we >> can stop this discussion here. > > I don;t think we'd have a problem with incorportaing support for ia64-be if > there's a good reason for it (a better reason than "because it's possible"). > >> The other way would be building wrappers around all the accesses to >> domU/hypervisor interfaces and hide the SWAPs there. But this seems a little >> bit overkill at this stage. > > It would be less ugly and I think less prone to missing some open-coded > accesses. Open-coding the SWAP()s is pretty grim. > One solution to the rotting problem would be write regression tests. High level tests (like for example netfront test) would be quite good at picking missing SWAPs, since they exercise a fair amount of Xen/Dom0 interfaces. Still it's quite hard to check the coverage (anybody happens to be an expert on coverage testing?). I too dislike scattering SWAPs all over the code, but I guess having a nice set of wrappers would at least confine the problem. Still ... not that fond of it. Cheers Gregor