Re: [PATCH 00/14] RFC: x86: relocatable kernel changes

[H. Peter Anvin]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Perhaps we should have:
> init_size
> best start (As a 64bit field please)
> optimum align  (Or we flip it around)

Thinking about this some more, I think you have a very good idea here.

Specifically, if we retcon the existing kernel_alignment field as 
"preferred alignment" (ignoring the naming issue for a bit), we can set 
that to 16 MB, which should give us correct behavior for all previously 
existing bootloaders.  Then we create a new "minimum alignment" field 
that newer bootloaders can use to relax the alignment requirement -- all 
the way down to 4K in the case of i386.  We document this field 
indicating that the bootloader should find the highest power of 2 <= 
preferred alignment, but down to this number.

The preferred address field becomes a readonly, advisory field; with it 
being readonly there aren't any funny issues with a strange loader 
writing a 64-bit address for a kernel which can't handle it (64-bit 
loading will still need substantial protocol changes, including how to 
find the entry point.)

Does that work for you?  That *should* address all your concerns, right?

	-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/