Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> +Protocol: 2.07+ >> + >> + A pointer to data that is specific to hardware subarch >> > > Do we care particularly? If 8 bytes is enough for the subarch, do we > care whether its a pointer or literal? After all, this is just a private > channel between the bootloader and some subarch-specific piece of code > in the kernel. > I see two options: either we make it a pointer *and a length* so that a loader can reshuffle it at will (that also implies no absolute pointers within the data), or it's an opaque cookie anyway. -hpa _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
