[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       xen-ppc-devel
Subject:    Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 07/35] Make LOAD_OFFSET defined by
From:       "Christian Limpach" <christian.limpach () gmail ! com>
Date:       2006-03-28 18:20:36
Message-ID: 3d8eece20603281020s3691322bi9b11deb902db1a87 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 3/28/06, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 March 2006 02:49, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > Basically what the suggestion outlined: use physical address + VIRT_BAS=
E
> > 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 t=
he
> paddr fields. Accordingly, I would reword it like this:
>         Some Linux kernels have virtual addresses in the paddr headers, a=
nd 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@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]