 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 07/35] Make LOAD_OFFSET defined by subarc
| To: | "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 07/35] Make LOAD_OFFSET defined by subarch |
| From: | "Christian Limpach" <christian.limpach@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:20:36 +0100 |
| Cc: | Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivery-date: | Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:22:05 +0000 |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Ll2lN6gS6YI3Mbgoe4FmeGaCaJayY1XH7Ank4LDZEhJFbyj78lIBU54n4AcaxUCqF7AvwwmcVkfVI0z+JIyVcMMTCbhC0VznQ7aWIAiBRMjYlG1KYKnXVKvfj9dGyq+KmnmrBDrjsgJbXHknAPW2U3JMsQVDcex+D8PdBlNfBmM= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200603281100.57586.hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| References: | <20060322063040.960068000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200603271256.44698.hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> <4428F8A1.9030909@xxxxxxx> <200603281100.57586.hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Christian.Limpach@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
On 3/28/06, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 March 2006 02:49, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > Basically what the suggestion outlined: use physical address + VIRT_BASE
> > instead of placing virtual addresses into the physical address fields.
> > Some discussions on that went over the list some weeks ago. Patch
> > attached for reference.
and there was no conclusion.
> > + * bug comparibility alert: old linux kernels used to have
> > + * virtual addresses in the paddr headers, whereas newer ones
> > + * (since kexec merge, around 2.6.14) correctly use physical
> > + * addresses.
>
> I can't speak for IA64, but PPC kernels still have virtual addresses in the
> paddr fields. Accordingly, I would reword it like this:
> Some Linux kernels have virtual addresses in the paddr headers, and
> some
> correctly use physical addresses.
How is that correct? The ELF spec is quite vague on what is supposed
to be in the paddr fields...
christian
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] context switch, Keir Fraser |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH][SVM] update guest time code, Woller, Thomas |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 07/35] Make LOAD_OFFSET defined by subarch, Hollis Blanchard |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] ELF headers, Hollis Blanchard |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
