From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932089AbXFAVkn (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:40:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760389AbXFAVkh (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:40:37 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:51039 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759665AbXFAVkh (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:40:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4660924A.2070009@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:40:26 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge CC: "Eric W. Biederman" , Rusty Russell , Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Extending boot protocol & bzImage for paravirt_ops References: <4656FB8F.4090604@goop.org> <466087CF.70708@goop.org> In-Reply-To: <466087CF.70708@goop.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> +Protocol: 2.07+ >> + >> + A pointer to data that is specific to hardware subarch >> > > Do we care particularly? If 8 bytes is enough for the subarch, do we > care whether its a pointer or literal? After all, this is just a private > channel between the bootloader and some subarch-specific piece of code > in the kernel. > I see two options: either we make it a pointer *and a length* so that a loader can reshuffle it at will (that also implies no absolute pointers within the data), or it's an opaque cookie anyway. -hpa