Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" bootheader field

[H. Peter Anvin]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> And now you understand why I am surveying these things and want to get
> the 32bit entry point well documented.  So the situation doesn't get worse.
> 
> Frankly while I consider what we are doing pretty sane I have always considered
> the 32bit entry point at least partly experimental.  But we have enough users
> of it now and enough reasons to have users of it, that it looks like we need to
> do things a little more methodically.
> 

Indeed.  I think, yes, what has been there up to now has pretty much
been at least in part experimental, and I fear there will be unavoidable
breakage as part of sanitizing it.  C'est la vie, I guess.

>>> And 4K seems to be our maximum size for backwards compatibility.  Although
>>> we use it in a fairly sparse way, so we should be ok.
>> Sort of.  It's pretty full.
> 
> True.  For small little extensions we have room.  For big things probably
> not.

For big extensions we'll probably have to go the pointer route already
done with the command line.

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