[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m18xc919im.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:57:05 -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 Mon, 2007-04-30 at 09:34 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Here's a rough patch to see what it looks like from an lguest POV. It's
> an improvement in many ways: I chose to hardcode the search for matching
> backend rather than use paravirt_probe-style magic.
Cool.
> It'd be nicer if there were a "struct boot_params" declaration, but we
> can't have everything.
Well it will come. I have an old one in kexec-tools and HPA looks like
he has one in his C rewrite.
I'm not going to worry about going farther until the patches in flight
settle down a little bit, but this looks promising.
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