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

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

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