[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1ejm16flv.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:34:20 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
patches@...-64.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> writes:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 21:38 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> >
>> > Dammit, Eric, you spend a lot of time using words like "insane" where
>> > you mean we didn't do everything all at once.
>> >
>> > It's *not* clear that using %esi is sane, but nothing in the current
>> > code prevents that.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> (I assume you mean why isn't it clear?)
>
> Because VMI uses the presence of a ROM to indicate it's not native. KVM
> uses a magic MSR IIRC.
>
> I think it makes sense for lguest to change over, tho. Patches welcome
> 8)
Reading this it occurs to me what I object to wasn't that clear.
I have no problem with the testing of %cs to see if we are not in ring0.
That part while a little odd is fine, and we will certainly need a test
to skip the protected instructions in head.S
What I object to in particular is having (struct lguest_info?) instead
of using the standard format for kernel parameters pointed to in %esi.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists