Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Well, I think we can safely say that its something that's only > meaningful in 32/64-bit mode, so we aren't constrained by the real-mode > address space. > > One of my goals in this project is to make the boot image, in some way, > completely define which memory it needs it get started. That means that > the boot loader can either place things knowing they'll avoid the boot > image and/or definitively know that the image is unloadable. > > So I don't think its strictly necessary to pre-define what memory this > object can use, since I think it can be safely determined dynamically. > That's a method of defining the memory space. I think the current definition is suitable for entering at the 16-bit entry point. -hpa _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
