Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 21:38 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Rusty Russell wrote: >> > >> > Dammit, Eric, you spend a lot of time using words like "insane" where >> > you mean we didn't do everything all at once. >> > >> > It's *not* clear that using %esi is sane, but nothing in the current >> > code prevents that. >> >> Why not? > > (I assume you mean why isn't it clear?) > > Because VMI uses the presence of a ROM to indicate it's not native. KVM > uses a magic MSR IIRC. > > I think it makes sense for lguest to change over, tho. Patches welcome > 8) Reading this it occurs to me what I object to wasn't that clear. I have no problem with the testing of %cs to see if we are not in ring0. That part while a little odd is fine, and we will certainly need a test to skip the protected instructions in head.S What I object to in particular is having (struct lguest_info?) instead of using the standard format for kernel parameters pointed to in %esi. Eric _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
