On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 09:54 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > My question for Eric is: will this fit with kexec (which I know v. > > little about)? > > My understanding is that Eric proposes that the entrypoint follow a > variation of the existing boot protocol, which means: > > * %ebx is the CPU number (=0) > * %esi points to the normal bootparams block, but perhaps with a > kick to the version number, and an extra field (or two) for > hypervisor-specific information > > and that kexec does more or less the same thing. But Xen doesn't do this today. I'm not interested in creating an interface which noone is going to use 8( Rusty. -- Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law
