Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field

Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>> ENTRY(startup_32)
>> #ifdef CONFIG_LGUEST_GUEST
>>         cmpl	$1, 0x23c(%esi)
>> 	je      lguest_init
>> #endif
> 
> Hi Eric!
> 
> 	Makes sense to me, but I wasn't sure... do we need to check for old
> bootloader versions and such?

So, in summary, yes, you have to check the version number before
assigning any meaning to this field.

	-hpa
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] CIFS: make sec=none force an anonymous mount
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
• Next by thread: 2.6.21-ck1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]