From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@huawei.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
"Ian.Campbell@citrix.com" <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"leif.lindholm@linaro.org" <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>,
"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
"julien.grall@citrix.com" <julien.grall@citrix.com>,
"freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>,
"matt.fleming@intel.com" <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
"christoffer.dall@linaro.org" <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
"jbeulich@suse.com" <jbeulich@suse.com>,
"peter.huangpeng@huawei.com" <peter.huangpeng@huawei.com>,
"shannon.zhao@linaro.org" <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
"daniel.kiper@oracle.com" <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/libstub/fdt: Standardize the names of EFI stub parameters
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:10:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1509101655020.2672@kaball.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150910144938.GI29293@leverpostej>
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:57PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > > Does Xen not talk to EFI itself and/or give the kernel a virtual EFI
> > > > > > > interface?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Xen talks to EFI itself but the interface provided to dom0 is somewhat
> > > > > > different: there are no BootServices (Xen calls ExitBootServices before
> > > > > > running the kernel), and the RuntimeServices go via hypercalls (see
> > > > > > drivers/xen/efi.c).
> > > > >
> > > > > That's somewhat hideous; a non Xen-aware OS wouild presumably die if
> > > > > trying to use any runtime services the normal way? I'm not keen on
> > > > > describing things that the OS cannot use.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that is somewhat hideous, but a non-Xen aware OS traditionally
> > > > has never been able to even boot as Dom0. On ARM it can, but it still
> > > > wouldn't be very useful (one couldn't use it to start other guests).
> > >
> > > Sure, but it feels odd to provide the usual information in this manner
> > > if it cannot be used. If you require Xen-specific code to make things
> > > work, I would imagine this information could be dciscovered in a
> > > Xen-specific manner.
> >
> > We need ACPI (or Device Tree) to find that Xen is available on the
> > platform, so we cannot use Xen-specific code to get the ACPI tables.
>
> I don't understand. The proposition already involves passing a custom DT
> to the OS, implying that Xen knows how to boot that OS, and how to pass
> it a DTB.
>
> Consider:
>
> A) In the DT-only case, we go:
>
> DT -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff
>
>
> B) The proposition is that un the ACPI case we go:
>
> DT -> EFI tables -> ACPI tables -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff -> override EFI/ACPI stuff
> \-----------------------/
> (be really cautious here)
Well, yes. To be pedantic "override" here would just be the different
delivery method for RuntimeServices. I guess it still counts.
> C) When you could go:
>
> DT -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff -> Xen-specific EFI/ACPI discovery
I take you mean discovering Xen with the usual Xen hypervisor node on
device tree. I think that C) is a good option actually. I like it. Not
sure why we didn't think about this earlier. Is there anything EFI or
ACPI which is needed before Xen support is discovered by
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c:setup_arch -> xen_early_init()?
If not, we could just go for this. A lot of complexity would go away.
> D) If you want to be generic:
> EFI -> EFI application -> EFI tables -> ACPI tables -> Xen-specific stuff
> \------------------------------------------/
> (virtualize these, provide shims to Dom0, but handle
> everything in Xen itself)
I think that this is good in theory but could turn out to be a lot of
work in practice. We could probably virtualize the RuntimeServices but
the BootServices are troublesome.
>
> E) Partially-generic option:
> EFI -> EFI application -> Xen detected by registered GUID -> Xen-specific EFI bootloader stuff -> OS in Xen-specific configuration
>
>
> > > > In any case this should be separate from the shim ABI discussion.
> > >
> > > I disagree; I think this is very much relevant to the ABI discussion.
> > > That's not to say that I insist on a particular approach, but I think
> > > that they need to be considered together.
> >
> > Let's suppose Xen didn't expose any RuntimeServices at all, would that
> > make it easier to discuss about the EFI stub parameters?
>
> It would simply the protocol specific to Xen, certainly.
>
> > In the grant scheme of things, they are not that important, as Ian
> > wrote what is important is how to pass the RSDP.
>
> Unfortunately we're still going to have to care about this eventually,
> even if for something like kexec. So we still need to spec out the state
> of things if this is going to be truly generic.
Fair enough. My position is that if we restrict this to RuntimeServices,
it might be possible, but I still prefer C).
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@huawei.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
"Ian.Campbell@citrix.com" <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"leif.lindholm@linaro.org" <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>,
"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
"julien.grall@citrix.com" <julien.grall@citrix.com>,
"freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>,
"matt.fleming@intel.com" <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
"christoffer.dall@linaro.org" <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
"jbeulich@suse.com" <jbeulich@su>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/libstub/fdt: Standardize the names of EFI stub parameters
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:10:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1509101655020.2672@kaball.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150910144938.GI29293@leverpostej>
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:57PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > > Does Xen not talk to EFI itself and/or give the kernel a virtual EFI
> > > > > > > interface?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Xen talks to EFI itself but the interface provided to dom0 is somewhat
> > > > > > different: there are no BootServices (Xen calls ExitBootServices before
> > > > > > running the kernel), and the RuntimeServices go via hypercalls (see
> > > > > > drivers/xen/efi.c).
> > > > >
> > > > > That's somewhat hideous; a non Xen-aware OS wouild presumably die if
> > > > > trying to use any runtime services the normal way? I'm not keen on
> > > > > describing things that the OS cannot use.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that is somewhat hideous, but a non-Xen aware OS traditionally
> > > > has never been able to even boot as Dom0. On ARM it can, but it still
> > > > wouldn't be very useful (one couldn't use it to start other guests).
> > >
> > > Sure, but it feels odd to provide the usual information in this manner
> > > if it cannot be used. If you require Xen-specific code to make things
> > > work, I would imagine this information could be dciscovered in a
> > > Xen-specific manner.
> >
> > We need ACPI (or Device Tree) to find that Xen is available on the
> > platform, so we cannot use Xen-specific code to get the ACPI tables.
>
> I don't understand. The proposition already involves passing a custom DT
> to the OS, implying that Xen knows how to boot that OS, and how to pass
> it a DTB.
>
> Consider:
>
> A) In the DT-only case, we go:
>
> DT -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff
>
>
> B) The proposition is that un the ACPI case we go:
>
> DT -> EFI tables -> ACPI tables -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff -> override EFI/ACPI stuff
> \-----------------------/
> (be really cautious here)
Well, yes. To be pedantic "override" here would just be the different
delivery method for RuntimeServices. I guess it still counts.
> C) When you could go:
>
> DT -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff -> Xen-specific EFI/ACPI discovery
I take you mean discovering Xen with the usual Xen hypervisor node on
device tree. I think that C) is a good option actually. I like it. Not
sure why we didn't think about this earlier. Is there anything EFI or
ACPI which is needed before Xen support is discovered by
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c:setup_arch -> xen_early_init()?
If not, we could just go for this. A lot of complexity would go away.
> D) If you want to be generic:
> EFI -> EFI application -> EFI tables -> ACPI tables -> Xen-specific stuff
> \------------------------------------------/
> (virtualize these, provide shims to Dom0, but handle
> everything in Xen itself)
I think that this is good in theory but could turn out to be a lot of
work in practice. We could probably virtualize the RuntimeServices but
the BootServices are troublesome.
>
> E) Partially-generic option:
> EFI -> EFI application -> Xen detected by registered GUID -> Xen-specific EFI bootloader stuff -> OS in Xen-specific configuration
>
>
> > > > In any case this should be separate from the shim ABI discussion.
> > >
> > > I disagree; I think this is very much relevant to the ABI discussion.
> > > That's not to say that I insist on a particular approach, but I think
> > > that they need to be considered together.
> >
> > Let's suppose Xen didn't expose any RuntimeServices at all, would that
> > make it easier to discuss about the EFI stub parameters?
>
> It would simply the protocol specific to Xen, certainly.
>
> > In the grant scheme of things, they are not that important, as Ian
> > wrote what is important is how to pass the RSDP.
>
> Unfortunately we're still going to have to care about this eventually,
> even if for something like kexec. So we still need to spec out the state
> of things if this is going to be truly generic.
Fair enough. My position is that if we restrict this to RuntimeServices,
it might be possible, but I still prefer C).
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com (Stefano Stabellini)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] efi/libstub/fdt: Standardize the names of EFI stub parameters
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:10:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1509101655020.2672@kaball.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150910144938.GI29293@leverpostej>
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:57PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > > Does Xen not talk to EFI itself and/or give the kernel a virtual EFI
> > > > > > > interface?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Xen talks to EFI itself but the interface provided to dom0 is somewhat
> > > > > > different: there are no BootServices (Xen calls ExitBootServices before
> > > > > > running the kernel), and the RuntimeServices go via hypercalls (see
> > > > > > drivers/xen/efi.c).
> > > > >
> > > > > That's somewhat hideous; a non Xen-aware OS wouild presumably die if
> > > > > trying to use any runtime services the normal way? I'm not keen on
> > > > > describing things that the OS cannot use.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that is somewhat hideous, but a non-Xen aware OS traditionally
> > > > has never been able to even boot as Dom0. On ARM it can, but it still
> > > > wouldn't be very useful (one couldn't use it to start other guests).
> > >
> > > Sure, but it feels odd to provide the usual information in this manner
> > > if it cannot be used. If you require Xen-specific code to make things
> > > work, I would imagine this information could be dciscovered in a
> > > Xen-specific manner.
> >
> > We need ACPI (or Device Tree) to find that Xen is available on the
> > platform, so we cannot use Xen-specific code to get the ACPI tables.
>
> I don't understand. The proposition already involves passing a custom DT
> to the OS, implying that Xen knows how to boot that OS, and how to pass
> it a DTB.
>
> Consider:
>
> A) In the DT-only case, we go:
>
> DT -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff
>
>
> B) The proposition is that un the ACPI case we go:
>
> DT -> EFI tables -> ACPI tables -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff -> override EFI/ACPI stuff
> \-----------------------/
> (be really cautious here)
Well, yes. To be pedantic "override" here would just be the different
delivery method for RuntimeServices. I guess it still counts.
> C) When you could go:
>
> DT -> Discover Xen -> Xen-specific stuff -> Xen-specific EFI/ACPI discovery
I take you mean discovering Xen with the usual Xen hypervisor node on
device tree. I think that C) is a good option actually. I like it. Not
sure why we didn't think about this earlier. Is there anything EFI or
ACPI which is needed before Xen support is discovered by
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c:setup_arch -> xen_early_init()?
If not, we could just go for this. A lot of complexity would go away.
> D) If you want to be generic:
> EFI -> EFI application -> EFI tables -> ACPI tables -> Xen-specific stuff
> \------------------------------------------/
> (virtualize these, provide shims to Dom0, but handle
> everything in Xen itself)
I think that this is good in theory but could turn out to be a lot of
work in practice. We could probably virtualize the RuntimeServices but
the BootServices are troublesome.
>
> E) Partially-generic option:
> EFI -> EFI application -> Xen detected by registered GUID -> Xen-specific EFI bootloader stuff -> OS in Xen-specific configuration
>
>
> > > > In any case this should be separate from the shim ABI discussion.
> > >
> > > I disagree; I think this is very much relevant to the ABI discussion.
> > > That's not to say that I insist on a particular approach, but I think
> > > that they need to be considered together.
> >
> > Let's suppose Xen didn't expose any RuntimeServices at all, would that
> > make it easier to discuss about the EFI stub parameters?
>
> It would simply the protocol specific to Xen, certainly.
>
> > In the grant scheme of things, they are not that important, as Ian
> > wrote what is important is how to pass the RSDP.
>
> Unfortunately we're still going to have to care about this eventually,
> even if for something like kexec. So we still need to spec out the state
> of things if this is going to be truly generic.
Fair enough. My position is that if we restrict this to RuntimeServices,
it might be possible, but I still prefer C).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-10 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 182+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-10 8:41 [PATCH] efi/libstub/fdt: Standardize the names of EFI stub parameters Shannon Zhao
2015-09-10 8:41 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-10 8:41 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-10 9:52 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 9:52 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 9:52 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 9:52 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 10:19 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 10:19 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 10:19 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 11:37 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 11:37 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 11:37 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 12:15 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 12:15 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 12:15 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 12:15 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 12:58 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-10 12:58 ` [Xen-devel] " Ian Campbell
2015-09-10 12:58 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-10 12:58 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-10 13:08 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 13:08 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 13:08 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 13:30 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-10 13:30 ` [Xen-devel] " Ian Campbell
2015-09-10 13:30 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-10 13:30 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-10 13:08 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 13:52 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 13:52 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 13:52 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 13:52 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 14:13 ` Leif Lindholm
2015-09-10 14:13 ` Leif Lindholm
2015-09-10 14:13 ` Leif Lindholm
2015-09-10 14:13 ` Leif Lindholm
2015-09-10 14:49 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 14:49 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 14:49 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 16:10 ` Stefano Stabellini [this message]
2015-09-10 16:10 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 16:10 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 16:23 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 16:23 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 16:23 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 12:46 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-11 12:46 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-11 12:46 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-11 12:46 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-11 13:14 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-11 13:14 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-11 13:14 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-11 13:14 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-11 13:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-11 13:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-11 13:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-11 15:45 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-11 15:45 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-11 15:45 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-11 15:45 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 8:42 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-14 8:42 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-14 8:42 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-14 9:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 9:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 9:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 9:31 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-14 9:31 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-14 9:31 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-14 9:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 9:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 9:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 9:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 10:39 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2015-09-14 10:39 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-14 10:39 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-14 11:16 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 11:16 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 11:16 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 11:34 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-14 11:34 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-14 11:34 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-14 11:34 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-14 11:16 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 10:39 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-14 9:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-11 16:33 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 16:33 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 16:33 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 16:33 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 13:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-11 16:25 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 16:25 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 16:25 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-12 11:36 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-12 11:36 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-12 11:36 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 9:25 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-14 9:25 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-14 9:25 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-14 9:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 9:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 9:57 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-14 12:28 ` Daniel Kiper
[not found] ` <CAKv+Gu9ER1cKvPHobq-wo7ggPesJj4OQ7=aTr24GVpubHvVqjQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2015-09-14 9:57 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-14 9:57 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-14 10:02 ` Ard Biesheuvel
[not found] ` <1442224673.3549.131.camel-Sxgqhf6Nn4DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2015-09-14 10:02 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 10:02 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 10:25 ` Ian Campbell
[not found] ` <CAKv+Gu_Gh649EwdtodLY9Q28JhqYg8o6RShXXH1ZbxsfYRfi2Q-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2015-09-14 10:25 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-14 10:25 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-14 12:28 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 12:28 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 13:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
[not found] ` <20150914122858.GI4530-fJNZiO034lp9pOct4yEdx/3oZC3j2Omk@public.gmane.org>
2015-09-14 13:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 13:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
[not found] ` <CAKv+Gu_z2X=9-qgoKTS7dKLqtSUvysyu9LzZryJqcSR4X8Ss6A-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2015-09-14 13:57 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 13:57 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 13:57 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 9:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-09-14 9:47 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-14 9:47 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-14 9:47 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-14 9:47 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-14 12:19 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 12:19 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 12:19 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 12:19 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-14 9:25 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-12 11:36 ` Daniel Kiper
2015-09-11 16:25 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 16:23 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 11:00 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-11 11:00 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-11 11:00 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-11 11:00 ` Ian Campbell
2015-09-10 16:10 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 14:49 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 12:55 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 12:55 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 12:55 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 12:55 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 14:53 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 14:53 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 14:53 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 15:06 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 15:06 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 15:06 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-11 16:36 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 16:36 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 16:36 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-11 16:36 ` Mark Rutland
2015-09-10 15:06 ` Jan Beulich
2015-09-10 11:37 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 10:19 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-09-10 11:32 ` Andrew Turner
2015-09-10 11:32 ` Andrew Turner
2015-09-10 11:32 ` Andrew Turner
2015-09-10 11:32 ` Andrew Turner
2015-09-10 11:48 ` Julien Grall
2015-09-10 11:48 ` Julien Grall
2015-09-10 11:48 ` Julien Grall
2015-09-10 11:48 ` Julien Grall
2015-09-10 12:05 ` Roger Pau Monné
2015-09-10 12:05 ` Roger Pau Monné
2015-09-10 12:05 ` Roger Pau Monné
2015-09-10 12:53 ` [Xen-devel] " Julien Grall
2015-09-10 12:53 ` Julien Grall
2015-09-10 12:53 ` Julien Grall
2015-09-10 12:53 ` Julien Grall
2015-09-10 12:05 ` Roger Pau Monné
2015-09-17 11:43 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-17 11:43 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-17 11:43 ` Shannon Zhao
2015-09-17 11:43 ` Shannon Zhao
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-09-10 8:41 Shannon Zhao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.02.1509101655020.2672@kaball.uk.xensource.com \
--to=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel.kiper@oracle.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=freebsd-arm@freebsd.org \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=julien.grall@citrix.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=leif.lindholm@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=matt.fleming@intel.com \
--cc=peter.huangpeng@huawei.com \
--cc=shannon.zhao@linaro.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
--cc=zhaoshenglong@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.