On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 14:43 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang at intel.com> writes: > > >> So, IMHO, for first simple implementation, we don't have to pass around > >> any data between kernels except entry point. (Please correct me if I am > >> wrong). Lets get that implementation in first and then we can get rest > >> of the pieces in place. > > > > Yes. Kernel entry/re-entry point is the only information need to be > > communicated between kernels for just switching between them. So we can > > focus on kexec jump patch firstly. > > Then as a preliminary design let's plan on this. > > - Pass the rentry point as the return address (using the C ABI). > We may want to load the stack pointer etc so we can act as > a direct entry point for new code. OK, I will try to do this. > - Look at passing a pointer to the mapping of pages that the kexec > trampoline uses in arg1 of the C ABI. Largely the format is defacto > fixed anyway because we need to pass the structure from C to > assembly. You mean pass image->head to purgatory of /sbin/kexec using arg1 of C ABI? > Using the standard C ABI makes things much it much easier to pick > a calling convention, and to document it. Yes. Best Regards, Huang Ying
