Re: Extending boot protocol & bzImage for paravirt_ops

[H. Peter Anvin]

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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/