[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
Chris Wright wrote: * Andi Kleen (ak@xxxxxxx) wrote:The disassembly stuff indeed doesn't look like something that belongs in the kernel.Strongly agreed. The strict ABI requirements put forth here are not in-line with Linux, IMO. I think source compatibility is the limit of reasonable, and any ROM code be in-tree if something like this were to be viable upstream. Hi Chris,Would you have less trouble if the "ROM" were actually more like a module? Specifically, if it had a proper elf header and symbol table, used symbols as entry points, and was a GPL interface (so that ROM's had to be GPL)? Then it's just a kernel module that's hidden in the option ROM space and has a C interface. I know you end up losing the ability to do crazy inlining of the ROM code but I think it becomes a much less hairy interface that way. Regards, Anthony Liguori thanks, -chris------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |