On 07/31/2010 07:42 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Yinghai Lu <yinghai at kernel.org> writes: > >> On 07/31/2010 02:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> On 07/31/2010 11:32 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, this is the internal part of the boot protocol, so it's not an issue. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Peter, I didn't mean any issue here, I meant that bootloaders don't know about >>>> this field yet and they will have to update own sources to pass port value >>>> at proper place of boot params. Or I miss something? >>>> >>> >>> Boot loaders that use the 16-bit entry point are unaffected. >>> >>> Boot loaders which use the 32-bit entry point but properly clears the >>> zero page simply will not have the feature. >>> >>> Boot loaders which use the 32-bit entry point but doesn't clear the zero >>> page are broken. >>> >> can you if this one is right for kexec path? > > I am walking out the door, but this seems like nonsense to me. > > Further I don't see why we would add something to the zero page > when we have a perfectly good way to pass this information via > the kernel command line. strstr and strtoul are trivial little > functions so I don't see why anything would need to parse anything > other than console= or early_printk=. The difference in code size > is negligible. > so you prefer to check command line for console info in arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c again? that commandline is analyzed in arch/x86/boot/tty.c already. Yinghai
