[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160711031044.GA2850@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:10:44 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, bhe@...hat.com,
vgoyal@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm64: kexec_file_load support
On 07/08/16 at 11:48am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 07 Juli 2016, 14:12:45 schrieb Dave Young:
> > If so maybe change a bit from your precious mentioned 7 args proposal like
> > below?
> >
> > struct kexec_file_fd {
> > enum kexec_file_type;
> > int fd;
> > }
> >
> > struct kexec_fdset {
> > int nr_fd;
> > struct kexec_file_fd fd[0];
> > }
> >
> > int kexec_file_load(int kernel_fd, int initrd_fd,
> > unsigned long cmdline_len, const char *cmdline_ptr,
> > unsigned long flags, struct kexec_fdset *extra_fds);
>
>
> Is there a way for the kernel to distinguish whether the process passed 5 or
> 6 arguments? How can it know whether extra_fds is a valid argument or just
> garbage? I think we have to define a new flag KEXEC_FILE_EXTRA_FDS so that
> the process can signal that it is using the new interface.
Agreed, a new flag is needed.
Thanks
Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists