Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage | Date | Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:47:01 -0600 |
| |
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Sure. >> >> Peter do we want to use the bootloader byte and assign lguest it's own >> bootloader type or do we want to add another field specific to >> paravirtualized environments? >> > > The bootloader byte is already a bit too overused; I'm a little scared > that we're going to run out of boot loader IDs as it is. > > We probably should add another field, and while we're at it maybe we > should add a boot loader extension field.
A dedicated subarchitecture field would make sense. One of the pieces that would be nice is if we could detect other non paravirt subarchitectures.
James is there a reasonable way to detect voyager at boot time? So we could potentially have a generic kernel that can also boot on voyager?
Eric - 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/
| |