From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Harp Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux based stubdom (GSoC 2011) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 11:51:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4DC4271A.3090001@adventiumlabs.org> References: <20110505163119363@spamfilter-21.visi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110505163119363@spamfilter-21.visi.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: yujiageng734@gmail.com Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/05/2011 11:31 AM, Jiageng Yu wrote: > > > Stubdoms are very small Xen PV guests used to run some software > components that otherwise live in dom0. We plan to implement a linux > based stubdom, which provides devices emulation to a particular HVM > guest. The major tasks of this project are described below. > > 1. We have to establish the environment of linux based stubdom > with minimal linux kernel and shared libraries, which could contain > the upstream qemu exactly. We also maintain a minimal upstream qemu by > cutting unnecessary objs in its configuration phase. The minimal linux > kernel, shared libraries and the upstream qemu are packed into the > ramdisk, which is the real body of stubdom we need. > ... > This is a brief introduction to the project. Any suggestion or > question will be Thankful! > This is an excellent project. One suggestion regarding the minimal Linux is to make allowances in the build process for different kernel compilation options and supplemental files in the stubdom image. Possibly worth thinking about different options for ramdisk, e.g. ramfs versus a compressed ext* filesystem. The former is lighter weight, but the latter offers more control, e.g. extended attributes. Best of luck, Steve Harp