From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JKW1j-0004wS-Nm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:48:11 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JKW1h-0004w1-VB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:48:11 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKW1h-0004vs-Kh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:48:09 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JKW1h-0003Tb-Hi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:48:09 -0500 Received: from Relay1.suse.de (relay-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A59E30A18 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:48:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47A19BCA.9050606@suse.de> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:58:34 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] x86 Multiboot support (extended) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi, I like this idea. When I just tried to load my multiboot kernel it failed, though, because of the following piece of code: > + // XXX: multiboot header may be within the first 8192 bytes, but header > + // is only the first 1024 > + > + // Ok, let's see if it is a multiboot image > + for(i=0; i<(256 - 12); i+=4) { // the header is 12x32bit long > + if(ldl_p(header+i) == 0x1BADB002) { I wonder if there is any reason why you didn't just replace the 1024 by 8192 in load_linux but added an XXX. Would this cause any problems I missed? With this change and replacing 256 by 8192 in the above code it works for my kernel, too. Anyway, I think the for condition should be i < 4 * (256 - 12), even without changing the 1024. Kevin