Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 09:34 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> 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. > > Here's a rough patch to see what it looks like from an lguest POV. It's > an improvement in many ways: I chose to hardcode the search for matching > backend rather than use paravirt_probe-style magic. Cool. > It'd be nicer if there were a "struct boot_params" declaration, but we > can't have everything. Well it will come. I have an old one in kexec-tools and HPA looks like he has one in his C rewrite. I'm not going to worry about going farther until the patches in flight settle down a little bit, but this looks promising. Eric _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
