On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Chris Patterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nice! :) I'll try to take this for a test drive this weekend and provide > some feedback. > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Nathan Rossi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This patch series updates the Xen recipes to use version 4.5.0 as well as >> refactoring and adding support for AArch64. >> >> The first 6 patches of this series are relatively trivial changes: adding >> additional files to packages, updating dependencies and adding support for >> additional architectures ontop of x86-64. The most important change is the >> moving of some x86 of the packages from xen-base RDEPENDS to RRECOMMENDS. >> >> Patches 7 and 8 are the reason for this set being a RFC instead of just a >> patch >> set, I am after feedback regarding the changes I have made for these >> patches. >> In these two patches I disabled the building of xen-qemu and seabios from >> within the xen build system. There are a number of issues in wrapping the >> xen >> build system within OE (including source fetching and cross building). >> >> +1 with this approach. I'm sure that the qemu rev included with the xen release is better tested and has some appropriate patches for xen users. However, the oe-core qemu recipe is in much better shape. Someone could break it out into its own recipe, if so desired. > Instead of building qemu from within xen, I have configured the qemu which >> is >> part of oe-core to build with xen support (PACKAGECONFIG_append = "xen"). >> Since >> xen support is available in mainline qemu this allows for easier support >> of the >> xen device emulation via qemu. The PACKAGECONFIG option in oe-core does >> need to >> be updated to point to the correct depends (which is seperate to this >> patch >> set). >> >> Agreed, maybe document in README? In my local.conf, I added: PACKAGECONFIG_append_pn-qemu = " xen " > SeaBIOS is disabled due to fetching issues as well as only being supported >> on >> x86. I have not worked out the issues around this yet. I am querying as to >> whether supporting it is desired, if so should it be via the xen build >> system >> or as a seperate recipe? >> >> +1 to breaking it out as a separate recipe, but it is important for us x86 hvm users :) If you'd like, I could attempt to port the recipe we use on openxt to meta-virtualization. > Thanks, >> Nathan >> >> Nathan Rossi (8): >> xen: Fix and refactor common include >> xen: Add Build and Target architecture mapping >> xen: Move x86/arch specific components into RRECOMMENDS >> xen: Fix up architecture specific steps >> xen: Add aarch64 as compatible host >> xen-*image-minimal: Setup conditional based on MACHINE_FEATURES >> xen: Update recipe to 4.5.0 >> xen-image-minimal: Install qemu instead of xen-qemu >> >> recipes-extended/images/xen-guest-image-minimal.bb | 2 +- >> recipes-extended/images/xen-image-minimal.bb | 6 +- >> ...lask-avoid-installing-policy-file-as-boot.patch | 26 ----- >> recipes-extended/xen/xen-arch.inc | 18 ++++ >> recipes-extended/xen/xen.inc | 113 >> +++++++++++++++++---- >> recipes-extended/xen/xen_4.3.1.bb | 24 ----- >> recipes-extended/xen/xen_4.5.0.bb | 36 +++++++ >> 7 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 >> recipes-extended/xen/files/flask-avoid-installing-policy-file-as-boot.patch >> create mode 100644 recipes-extended/xen/xen-arch.inc >> delete mode 100644 recipes-extended/xen/xen_4.3.1.bb >> create mode 100644 recipes-extended/xen/xen_4.5.0.bb >> >> -- >> 2.1.1 >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> meta-virtualization mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-virtualization >> > > I did some really basic testing of xen-image-minimal. I built against master on a x86-64 host for an intel x86-64 target. For my build, I had to set TUNE_CCARGS="" for xen as the -mno-sse flag required in xen/arch/x86/Rules.mk was conflicting with the standard tune args. I'm not sure the most appropriate way to do this, but that's how I worked around it. Any ideas on a better way to handle this? Without addressing seabios, I couldn't do much to validate running guests, but otherwise it seem to run fine. We'll have to figure out something here. Nice work! Cheers, -Chris
-- _______________________________________________ meta-virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-virtualization
