Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix boot protocol KEEP_SEGMENTS check.

Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Saturday 27 October 2007 03:29:04 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>   
>> The kernel only ever supports 1 version of the boot protocol
>> so there is no need to check the boot protocol revision to
>> see if a feature is supported.
>>     
>
> OK, I'm completely confused, so this is probably a v. dumb question.  Doesn't 
> this boot header come from the boot loader?

No, other way around.  It the kernel telling the bootloader "I
understand boot protocol X", and the bootloader makes sure it doesn't
fill out more than X allows.  If the bootloader supports <X, then the
kernel's boot_params structure is pre-constructed with reasonable
default values.

    J
-
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:
  • [PATCH] x86: Fix boot protocol KEEP_SEGMENTS check.
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix boot protocol KEEP_SEGMENTS check.
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: dev_ifname32() fails on 32->64bit calls in copy_in_user().
• Next by Date: Re: dev_ifname32() fails on 32->64bit calls in copy_in_user().
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix boot protocol KEEP_SEGMENTS check.
• Next by thread: [PATCH] voyager: fix breakage caused by boot_params problem
• 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]