From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Draft B] Boot ABI for HVM guests without a
	device-model
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:43:06 +0100
Message-ID: <55DEDBAA.9030601@citrix.com>
References: <55DDA795.2010208@citrix.com>
	<55DDC684020000780009D1CC@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<55DDAD38.9020200@citrix.com> <55DDD0D9.4080800@citrix.com>
	<55DEE093020000780009D4E0@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=674cdb2fc=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZUtiD-0006w1-3u
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:43:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: <55DEE093020000780009D4E0@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, =?windows-1252?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, BorisOstrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 27/08/15 09:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 26.08.15 at 16:44, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> El 26/08/15 a les 14.12, Andrew Cooper ha escrit:
>>> On 26/08/15 13:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> This structure is guaranteed to always be placed in memory after the
>>>> DYM "These structures are ..."?
>>>>
>>>>> loaded kernel and modules.
>>> There is no requirement for the command line/module information to be
>>> after the loaded kernel.  All it needs to do is not overlap.
>> IMHO, this is helpful in order to get last used physical address, after
>> which free memory starts. Current FreeBSD implementation relies on this,
>> if we didn't do it that way I would have to calculate where the symtab +
>> strtab ends, which is more complex.
> But the statement leaves open whether there is any free memory at
> all after those structures, or whether instead all free memory lives
> at lower addresses. Nor do I consider it appropriate to take a present
> (one might say overly simplistic) implementation as a basis for setting
> arbitrary restrictions.

I agree.  This sounds like a FreeBSD bug, and absolutely shouldn't be a
written restriction in the boot ABI.

~Andrew