[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 07/35] Make LOAD_OFFSET defined by subarch
- To: "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- 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=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
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
> correctly use physical addresses.
How is that correct? The ELF spec is quite vague on what is supposed
to be in the paddr fields...
Xen-devel mailing list