On 08/04/16 09:36, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:I think adding an own subarch for dom0 isn't that bad. It really is
On 08/04/16 08:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:This would mean bumping the x86 boot protocol, we shouldn't take that
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay. Another idea (not sure whether this is really a good one):
Add X86_SUBARCH_XEN_DOM0. As hardware_subarch is 32 bits wide I don't
think the number of subarchs is a scarce resource. :-)
lightly, but given that in this case the new subarch would really only
be set by the kernel (or future loaders for perhaps HVMLite) I'd think
this is not such an intrusive alternative.
different from domU as dom0 has per default access to the real hardware
(or at least to most of it).