On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:56:16PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:22:57PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:17 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > > But I think changing this macro might run into issues. It is
> > > > > being used at few places in kernel, for example while loading
> > > > > module. This will essentially mean that we allow loading 64bit
> > > > > x86_64 modules on 32bit i386 systems?
> >
> > Yes, not sure how I missed that fact...
> >
> > > Kexec will also not allow loading an x86_64 kernel on a 32bit machine.
> >
> > For crash kernel only or for regular kexec too?
> >
>
> I think for both. One of the possible reasons I think is that one never
> knows is underlying machine has got 64bit extensions or not. So even if
> we load the kernel it will never boot. Secondly, we might not be able to
> handle 64bit address in 32bit kernel/user space?
Perhaps I am miss-understanding what you are saying, but I do
recally kexecing from 32->64 and 64->32 bit kernels on x86_64 hardware.
I can run these checks again if it helps.
Won't the above change break non i386 archtectures as
vmcore_elf_check_arch_cross isn't defined for them?