From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HWJj8-0000bO-LS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:01:14 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HWJj7-0000bA-7C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:01:14 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWJj7-0000b7-1T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:01:13 -0500 Received: from phoenix.bawue.net ([193.7.176.60] helo=mail.bawue.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HWJgh-00059c-QS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:58:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:56:24 +0100 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Increase max -kernel size Message-ID: <20070327215624.GA16825@networkno.de> References: <20070327191640.GI23564@networkno.de> <20070327212511.GA25000@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070327212511.GA25000@caradoc.them.org> From: Thiemo Seufer Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:16:40PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > Gwenole Beauchesne wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The following patch increases max kernel size to 8 MB when qemu is invoked > > > with -kernel and -initrd. Otherwise, x86_64 kernel panics when loading the > > > initrd (e.g. /x86_64/isolinux/alt0/{vmlinuz,all.rdz}). > > > > I would like a patch which adjusts the initrd load address dynamically, > > depending on the kernel load size, instead of hardcoding just a > > different magic number. > > Note, that does not readily work - this is where we load the > compressed kernel image and initrd, but what matters is the size it > gets uncompressed to. I think what matters is the space taken by (uncompressed and loaded) kernel ALLOC segments. Everything above that should be ok to load a ramdisk. IOW, the ELF loader would need to return the topmost address it came across, including .bss-like parts. The up-aligned value would become the initrd load address. Thiemo