Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching

[Anthony Liguori]

Chris Wright wrote:
> * Andi Kleen (ak@xxxxxxx) wrote:
>   
> > The disassembly stuff indeed doesn't look like something
> > that belongs in the kernel.
> >     
>
> Strongly agreed.  The strict ABI requirements put forth here are not
> in-line with Linux, IMO.  I think source compatibility is the limit of
> reasonable, and any ROM code be in-tree if something like this were to
> be viable upstream.
>   

Hi Chris,

Would you have less trouble if the "ROM" were actually more like a 
module?  Specifically, if it had a proper elf header and symbol table, 
used symbols as entry points, and was a GPL interface (so that ROM's had 
to be GPL)?  Then it's just a kernel module that's hidden in the option 
ROM space and has a C interface.

I know you end up losing the ability to do crazy inlining of the ROM 
code but I think it becomes a much less hairy interface that way.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> thanks,
> -chris
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
>   

-
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/