[Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH]mini-os: big-endian mini-os on ia64

[Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2007 09:37 schrieb Keir Fraser:
> On 28/2/07 08:25, "Dietmar Hahn" <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 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").
> >
> > I understand this.
>
> Doing this for an OS that has pre-existing dependencies on being big-endian
> (like your BS2000, presumably) I can understand. But I don't see why adding
> contrary-endianness support to minios is part of your roadmap when your end
> goal is the porting of a completely different OS? If it's part of a
> work-scoping exercise then maybe that's understandable, but I don't see why
> we'd necessarily take the resulting minios modifications upstream.
I did the mini-os port to ia64 as a starting point to get familiar with the 
internals of xen. The big-endian stuff in mini-os was a "work-scoping 
exercise" for me, but after getting big-endianess extensions into ia64-xen 
this was an offer to all developers interested in testing/developing the 
big-endian feature in xen-ia64.

> >> It would be less ugly and I think less prone to missing some open-coded
> >> accesses. Open-coding the SWAP()s is pretty grim.
> >
> > Yes I see this. It's simply more work and more code is touched but from
> > the design view it's a lot better.
> > If this is OK for you, I will try this and send a new patch as a
> > proposal.
>
> *If* we decide that this is a worthwhile exercise at all for minios, then I
> think this has to be the way to go.
I understand this.
Thanks.

Dietmar.

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel