Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] xen: Break multiboot (v1) dependency and add multiboot2 support

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 24.09.14 at 19:48, <roy.franz@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch series breaks multiboot (v1) protocol dependency and adds
>> multiboot2 support. It lays down the foundation for EFI + GRUB2 + Xen
>> development. Detailed description of ideas and thoughts you will
>> find in commit message for every patch. If something is not obvious
>> please drop me a line.
>>
>> Most of the requested things are fixed but there are still some minor
>> outstanding issues (multiboot2 tags generation, excessive amount of casts
>> in xen/arch/x86/boot/reloc.c, etc.; please check commit messages for
>> more details). If something is not fixed yet it means that I do not have
>> good idea how to do that. In case you spot something which was mentioned
>> during previous review and still think that your comment is valid
>> in particular case please notify me.
>>
>> Below you can find reply for Konrad's questions in regards to
>> exception request for Xen 4.5 release.
>>
>>> Couple of questions:
>>>
>>>  - Since this is mostly XBI code, is there a lot of overlap with the ARM/x86
>>>    refactoring of the EFI code? As in, will it require a lot of
>>>    rebasing/fixing it up?
>>
>> I did not checked that right now. However, Roy once told me that this should
>> not be very big issue because overlap is not so big. Please check this email
>> for more details: 
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-08/msg01173.html 
>>
>> Sadly, it was sent more then one month ago so maybe something has changed.
>> Roy, any comments on that?
> There aren't fundamental conceptual conflicts, but there will be quite
> a bit of refactoring/rebasing to do.  Most of my patchset is
> re-organizing
> x86/efi/boot.c, so rebasing it on this patchset would be a significant
> amount of work.   My guess is that the first 10 of the 13 patches
> in my series would need be be completely redone, as the code they are
> rearranging has been changed by your series.
> I think that it would be much less work for you to re-base your series
> on mine, than the other way.  The x86/efi/boot.c changes
> are a relatively small part of your series, but are the bulk of mine.
> 
> I should have another version of my patchset out today.

And when looking at both series later today in detail, I'm certainly
going to give priority to Roy's as I expect that one to be largely
ready to go in now (or at least a sufficiently large initial part of it).

Jan