lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
Date

On 23 Mar 2006, at 00:40, Chris Wright wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Yeah, point is the interface is normal C API, and has the similar free
> form that normal kernel API's have.

i think this sounds very sane, and an OS-specific interface shim gets
around problems such as finding CPU-specific state -- we can get at
smp_processor_id() just the same as the rest of the kernel, for
example. We could extend the concept of the interface shim we already
have -- a set of OS-specific high performance shims, plus a fallback
OS-agnostic shim.

-- Keir

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-23 10:28    [W:0.079 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site