From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S933586AbXCPLlI@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933586AbXCPLlI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:41:08 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933602AbXCPLlH
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:41:07 -0400
Received: from 207.47.60.147.static.nextweb.net ([207.47.60.147]:42346 "EHLO
	rpc.xensource.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933603AbXCPLlF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:41:05 -0400
Subject: Re: [Fastboot] [PATCH 1/1] Allow i386 crash kernels to handle
	x86_64 dumps
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@XenSource.com>
To: vgoyal@in.ibm.com
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, Horms <horms@verge.net.au>,
       fastboot@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20070316113801.GC5642@in.ibm.com>
References: <1173961378.8591.63.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20070315132616.GH6766@in.ibm.com> <20070315234807.GB10861@verge.net.au>
	 <aec7e5c30703151940x7447abbey80cb6e47250cca58@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1174030097.28658.37.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <aec7e5c30703160059u108d984dt6bfb831603a887c5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1174035001.28658.61.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <aec7e5c30703160220i3e8a03cbh431622975acbe72d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070316093542.GB5642@in.ibm.com>
	 <aec7e5c30703160305p5d91af41h147e3a6c2687bcd9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070316113801.GC5642@in.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:40:55 +0000
Message-Id: <1174045255.8591.102.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2007 11:41:03.0534 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA136CE0:01C767BF]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 17:08 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:30PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > On 3/16/07, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >Got a question. When running 32bit dom0 on 64bit hypervisor, which
> > >kexec-tools elf loader will kick in? 32bit or 64bit? Looks like in this
> > >case 64bit one. But shouldn't it be 32bit as 32bit OS is running and we
> > >must be using the kexec-tools binary compiled for 32bit OS? And if 32bit
> > >loader kicks in we will not be passing any acpi parameters.
> > 
> > There is no check to see if the hypervisor is 32 or 64 bits present
> > today. So the 32-bit version of kexec-tools will support loading
> > images like any other 32-bit kexec-tools.
> > 
> 
> If that is the case then in prepared elf headers, machine type should
> be EM_386 or similar and not EM_X86_64 and Ian shouldn't have run into
> the problem at all with vmcore. Am I missing something?

The PRSTATUS ELF notes are generated by the hypervisor not by the kernel
so they are in 64 bit format in this scenario. The machine type should
reflect this.

Ian.