>>> On 31.08.15 at 21:49, wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 28.08.15 at 15:42, wrote:
>> > Now that said - do you have suggestions on how to make this work
>> > with GRUB in the picture?
>>
>> ... I
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 28.08.15 at 15:42, wrote:
> > And I am not comfortable to say 'GRUB2+Xen cannot run on this hardware
> > because your firmware vendor is not following the EFI spec in spirit.'
>
> Well, not the least
On 27.08.15 at 19:56, 426...@gmail.com wrote:
If you advocate direct booting ( no boot loader) on production machines I
wont argue much, as long as there is good recovery tools to deal with
failed boots (grub does this very well, I am not aware of anything
comparable that is pure efi).
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 02:22:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.08.15 at 19:56, 426...@gmail.com wrote:
If you advocate direct booting ( no boot loader) on production machines I
wont argue much, as long as there is good recovery tools to deal with
failed boots (grub does this very
On 28.08.15 at 15:42, konrad.w...@oracle.com wrote:
And I am not comfortable to say 'GRUB2+Xen cannot run on this hardware
because your firmware vendor is not following the EFI spec in spirit.'
Well, not the least since I don't really agree with this (albeit I can
see where you're coming from)
On 27.08.15 at 17:29, jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
You're right, there's no such requirement on memory use in the spec.
But you're missing the point. Supporting grub2 on UEFI is already a
hack (ignoring all intentions EFI had from its first days). And now
you've found an environment where that
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
Every multiboot protocol (regardless of version) compatible image must
specify its load address (in ELF or multiboot header). Multiboot protocol
compatible
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:49:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.08.15 at 13:52, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h
On 14.08.15 at 15:59, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:49:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.08.15 at 13:52, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:32:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.08.15 at 15:59, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:49:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.08.15 at 13:52, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek
On 14.08.15 at 16:37, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:32:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.08.15 at 15:59, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:49:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.08.15 at 13:52, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On
On 14.08.15 at 13:52, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/page.h
index 87b3341..27481ac 100644
---
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
Every multiboot protocol (regardless of version) compatible image must
specify its load address (in ELF or multiboot header). Multiboot protocol
compatible loader have to load image at specified address. However, there
is no
13 matches
Mail list logo