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
> 8)

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
Please read the FAQ at