[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B3BADDA.8040102@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:45:30 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
CC: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
fche LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: record relocation offset
On 12/30/2009 05:15 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
> I'm no expert on the intricacies of boot_params, but all the other hunks
> seems sensible, but can't we provide a non-perf specific way of getting
> the relocate_offset? I guess other tools would also love to have it.
>
> What about systemtap, don't they solve this in some other way? Frank?
>
I at one point proposed that boot_params should be exported in toto via
sysfs. This got rather brutally shut down as "it's just a debugging
feature" and got moved to debugfs (/debug/boot_params/data). However,
the entire boot_params structure is available there.
Regardless of the reporting method, the patch passing this in by
modifying the early assembly code, though, is more than a little
pointless. The kernel already knows where it is loaded -- obviously, by
sheer necessity -- and knows how it was itself configured, and as such
we can do this calculation in C code without modifying boot_params or
the early bootstrap.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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