From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1U8rEz-0004hQ-Bf for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:56:38 +0000 Message-ID: <51275CF2.8080109@citrix.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:56:34 +0000 From: David Vrabel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/8] kexec: extended kexec hypercall for use with pv-ops kernels References: <1361468894-18655-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <512737A302000078000C038F@nat28.tlf.novell.com> In-Reply-To: <512737A302000078000C038F@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Daniel Kiper , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" On 22/02/13 08:17, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 21.02.13 at 18:48, David Vrabel wrote: >> The series improves the kexec hypercall by making Xen responsible for >> loading and relocating the image. This allows kexec to be usable by >> pv-ops kernels and should allow kexec to be usable from a HVM or PVH >> privileged domain. >> >> The first patch is a simple clean-up. >> >> The second patch allows hypercall structures to be ABI compatible >> between 32- and 64-bit guests (by reusing stuff present for domctls >> and sysctls). This seems better than having to keep adding compat >> handling for new hypercalls etc. >> >> Patch 3 introduces the new ABI. >> >> Patch 4 and 5 nearly completely reimplement the kexec load, unload and >> exec sub-ops. The old load_v1 sub-op is then implemented on top of >> the new code. >> >> Patch 6 calls the kexec image when dom0 crashes. This avoids having >> to alter dom0 kernels to do a exec sub-op call on crash -- an existing >> SHUTDOWN_crash. > > Am I right in understanding that at this point no kexec support is > necessary in the Dom0 kernel at all anymore? If so, that's a very > nice move - thanks for doing that! Yes. It will kexec slightly later than it would on native (or classic) but I don't think this will be a problem in practice. David _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec