[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50ABF23A.7020305@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:12:26 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] x86: Add macro for 64bit entry startup_64
On 11/20/2012 12:55 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> I don't see any point in three flags here. Let's stick to one flag; then it fits in the existing boot_flags field.
>
> the magic AA55
>
> boot/header.S:boot_flag: .word 0xAA55
>
> if change that to other value, would it break existing boot loader?
> aka old boot loader could boot the new bzImage anymore.
>
Sorry, I meant loadflags.
This is a read flag and so should be low, bit 1 presumably.
On the other hand, the read flags in loadflags has not been modified for
a very long time, and there is a serious risk that some broken
bootloader might be doing a full byte comparison.
relocatable_kernel really should have been a flag, but it is now defined
as a comparison with zero. As such, and in an effort to minimize the
growth of struct setup_header (it is limited to little over 128 bytes
long) I suggest we redefine the 16-byte field at offset 0x236 as a new
flags field. We still only need one flag, though.
Backwards compatibility is so much fun.
-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