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]