From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LURJo-0003kH-3p for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:52:27 +0000 References: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E027534BA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:52:09 -0800 In-Reply-To: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E027534BA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> (Ming Lei's message of "Tue\, 27 Jan 2009 14\:22\:18 -0800") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: should kernel image destination address be picked up by kernel itself? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Ming Lei Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org "Ming Lei" writes: > As I understand the code, current destination address is picked up by > either the user(elf image) or kexec-tools. It is not automatic, can we > let linux kernel choose the address instead? It is automatic and no way > to wipe out something important. I don't follow. The basic model of kexec is: - kexec is fed a standalone executables (things that run without OS support) - All of the policy decisions are made in user space (such as where to execute from) - standalone executables are loaded into an address space where physical address and virtual address are the same. - Sophisticated page swapping happens in the kernel where sys_kexec_load was called so that any valid address on the machine is available to the standalone executable. What problem do you see in that model? Why is it a problem for you? Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec