From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Extending boot protocol & bzImage for paravirt_ops Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:40:26 -0700 Message-ID: <4660924A.2070009@zytor.com> References: <4656FB8F.4090604@goop.org> <466087CF.70708@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <466087CF.70708@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List , "Eric W. Biederman" , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.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