From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763917AbXFAVra (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:47:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761412AbXFAVrY (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:47:24 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:53704 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760836AbXFAVrX (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:47:23 -0400 Message-ID: <466093E3.4010701@goop.org> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:47:15 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" 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> <4660924A.2070009@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4660924A.2070009@zytor.com> 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 H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> 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. > No, it has to be completely opaque. It might be a pointer to some special shared memory or something, and not movable. J