On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Mukesh: Could you explain a bit the advantage of gdbsx over the
>>current implementation that is already in tree? I figured out some,
>>but still might miss some. That is not very clear from the slides.
>
> I've not used the current implementation in the tree so can't compare.
> The main reason for gdbsx is because we use 32bit dom0 on 64bit hypervisor,
> and I couldn't get libxc to support that after a lot of effort.
>
> What I can tell you about gdbsx is, it's a clean, simplified, lightweight
> implementation, that relies on the hyp for most of the work with minimal
> changes. It supports all guests, PV or HVM, 32bit or 64bit.
Thanks. I will look at the code and get back if I have more questions.
>
>
> Keir Fraser wrote:
>> On 1/9/08 17:15, "Jun Koi" <junkoi2004@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> It has some chance, if it is used and if it is cleanly implemented.
>> Equally
>> for now it ought to be able to live quite happily outside of the main
>> repository.
>>
>> -- Keir
>
> gdbsx currently works on 32bit dom0 running on 64bit hyp, hence, probably
> not ready for the main repo. OTOH, kdb is getting there....
>
gdbsx can happily stay outside tree as long as your changes to
hypercalls are merged. So it is important to get those hypercalls in.
Thanks,
Jun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel