Re: [PATCH] Revert "[PATCH] paravirt: Add startup infrastructure for paravirtualization"

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 20:53 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> writes:
> The delicate part right now is that lguest is attempting to use the
> standard kernel entry point which does have a fixed ABI.
> 
> If lguest uses that entry point in a hard to maintain way it provides
> a bad example, and it potentially leads to other problems.  So I
> really don't want to see the bad example happen, especially if the
> code in the bad example is as general as it is today.

I completely agree, a bad example is worse than no example.  Plus, an
opportunity to have you and hpa hacking on lguest is not to be missed.

> Frankly I think the least risk of problems comes from just doing a
> separate entry point for lguest for now.  It means we don't even have
> to touch the common code path and later dropping will be trivially 
> lguest specific, and certain to not break anything else.

Hmm, I railed for so long against Xen doing that, it feels... wrong...
to do that now 8)

I think I'll need to hack in a magic signature before the lguest start:
it's the only way it'll work with unpacking bzImages as well.  And it'll
be trivial to rip out later when we have the Right Way.

I'll spin a patch this afternoon (got to go to puppy training now).

Thanks!
Rusty.