WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/10] i386: clean up bzImage generation

To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/10] i386: clean up bzImage generation
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:03:20 -0700
Cc: Xen-Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, v12n <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:01:16 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4672C383.7000304@xxxxxxxxx>
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: <20070615004818.424726597@xxxxxxxx> <20070615005012.962196819@xxxxxxxx> <4672BC3E.6080308@xxxxxxxxx> <4672BF82.9050101@xxxxxxxx> <4672C383.7000304@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302)
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>   
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>     
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> -setup_move_size: .word  0x8000            # size to move, when setup is 
>>>> not
>>>> +setup_move_size: .word  _setup_size       # size to move, when setup is 
>>>> not
>>>>                                    # loaded at 0x90000. We will move setup
>>>>                                    # to 0x90000 then just before jumping
>>>>                                    # into the kernel. However, only the
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> This is WRONG and will break 2.00 protocol bootloaders, if any still
>>> exist, and quite possibly some 2.01 protocol bootloaders.  There are
>>> definitiely bootloaders in the field that rely on this implicit value.   
>>>       
>> Ah, I see.  I didn't see any documentation saying that this must be
>> 0x8000.  Or does _setup_size just have to be <= 0x8000?
>>
>>     
>
> The default for unaware bootloaders has been 0x8000 since the boot
> protocol was created, and bootloaders are known to (improperly) rely on
> it.  _setup_size does have to be <= 0x8000, but that's another issue.
>   

Hm, so the worst that could happen is that an old bootloader will
over-copy 0x8000 bytes rather than the specified amount?  How would that
break anything?

> I said it probably wouldn't hurt to drop it.  I don't believe you ever
> actually explained why you wanted it dropped.

Well, I don't specifically care for Xen; I don't really mind either way
in general.  I'll break it into a separate patch and we can handle it
that way.

    J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>