Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/