Chris Wright wrote:
* Andi Kleen ([email protected]) wrote:
The disassembly stuff indeed doesn't look like something
that belongs in the kernel.
Strongly agreed. The strict ABI requirements put forth here are not
in-line with Linux, IMO. I think source compatibility is the limit of
reasonable, and any ROM code be in-tree if something like this were to
be viable upstream.
Hi Chris,
Would you have less trouble if the "ROM" were actually more like a
module? Specifically, if it had a proper elf header and symbol table,
used symbols as entry points, and was a GPL interface (so that ROM's had
to be GPL)? Then it's just a kernel module that's hidden in the option
ROM space and has a C interface.
I know you end up losing the ability to do crazy inlining of the ROM
code but I think it becomes a much less hairy interface that way.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
thanks,
-chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
