Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage
From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Mon Apr 30 2007 - 11:35:40 EST
Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 21:38 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> > Dammit, Eric, you spend a lot of time using words like "insane" where
>> > you mean we didn't do everything all at once.
>> > It's *not* clear that using %esi is sane, but nothing in the current
>> > code prevents that.
>> Why not?
> (I assume you mean why isn't it clear?)
> Because VMI uses the presence of a ROM to indicate it's not native. KVM
> uses a magic MSR IIRC.
> I think it makes sense for lguest to change over, tho. Patches welcome
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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/