Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:31:00 -0600 | From | Anthony Liguori <> | Subject | Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching |
| |
Chris Wright wrote: > * Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de) 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@lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization >
- 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/
| |