On 1/19/17 3:31 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 18.01.17 at 18:38, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> What's controversial about it? > > The not insignificant amount of assembly code it adds, when our > overall goal is to reduce the amount of assembly code. But > Andrew has meanwhile indicated he's okay for this to go in as is. > I will want to go over the whole patch once more though before > committing it.
I completely agree with you on the assembly vs C. I want to follow this up with some conversions to C but my original goal was to land some basic multiboot2 support since we've had this series outstanding for years. I was just trying to help this series move forward and believe we can do improvements after the fact. -- Doug Goldstein
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
