Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" bootheader field

[H. Peter Anvin]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Unlikely.  Unless we expect that this offset will come in non-zero.
>>>
>> You might have to worry about that.  Historically, the "zero-page" was
>> really just the setup code overwritten, and it's still true for a big
>> chunk of it.
>>
>> One of the major changes in my setup code rewrite is to start out with
>> an all-zero chunk of memory for this.
> 
> Well as long as we are in sync with setup.S we are fine.  The issue
> is people generating the real-mode data from scratch, when using the
> 32bit entry point.

Point.  I'd like that interface to specify that any undefined fields
should be zero, or we have a hopeless situation on our hands.

By the way, see the following for the structure definition; prepare to barf:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/hpa/linux-2.6-newsetup.git;a=blob;f=arch/i386/boot/boot.h;h=41a16f96ac3476cbd969aabe5e6a792ffe8c64a0;hb=HEAD

[I intend to move this into include/asm-i386/boot.h, but haven't gotten
that far yet.  I just yesterday got the code booting on both i386 and
x86-64, but haven't committed all the include/asm-* mods that went a
long with that yet.  I'm also waiting for a Kbuild fix so that the boot
directory can be shared between i386 and x86-64 without requiring a
symlink in the source tarball.]

	-hpa
-
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/