Re: Extending boot protocol & bzImage for paravirt_ops

H. Peter Anvin
2007-06-02T00:43:20Z

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> Well, I think we can safely say that its something that's only
> meaningful in 32/64-bit mode, so we aren't constrained by the real-mode
> address space.
>
> One of my goals in this project is to make the boot image, in some way,
> completely define which memory it needs it get started. That means that
> the boot loader can either place things knowing they'll avoid the boot
> image and/or definitively know that the image is unloadable.
>
> So I don't think its strictly necessary to pre-define what memory this
> object can use, since I think it can be safely determined dynamically.
>

That's a method of defining the memory space.

I think the current definition is suitable for entering at the 16-bit
entry point.

-hpa