Re: [PATCH 5/5] lguest: loading bzImage directly

2007-11-25 Thread Kjartan Maraas
lø., 24.11.2007 kl. 14.14 -0800, skrev H. Peter Anvin: > Kjartan Maraas wrote: > > to., 04.10.2007 kl. 10.02 +1000, skrev Rusty Russell: > >> On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 10:37 +0100, Chris Malley wrote: > >>> Hi guys > >>> > >>> Would it not be clearer to #include and use > >>> the relevant named memb

Re: [PATCH 5/5] lguest: loading bzImage directly

2007-11-24 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Kjartan Maraas wrote: to., 04.10.2007 kl. 10.02 +1000, skrev Rusty Russell: On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 10:37 +0100, Chris Malley wrote: Hi guys Would it not be clearer to #include and use the relevant named members of struct setup_header / struct boot_params rather than the hard-coded values 0x2

Re: [PATCH 5/5] lguest: loading bzImage directly

2007-11-24 Thread Kjartan Maraas
to., 04.10.2007 kl. 10.02 +1000, skrev Rusty Russell: > On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 10:37 +0100, Chris Malley wrote: > > Hi guys > > > > Would it not be clearer to #include and use > > the relevant named members of struct setup_header / struct boot_params > > rather than the hard-coded values 0x202,

Re: [PATCH 5/5] lguest: loading bzImage directly

2007-10-03 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Rusty Russell wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 10:37 +0100, Chris Malley wrote: Hi guys Would it not be clearer to #include and use the relevant named members of struct setup_header / struct boot_params rather than the hard-coded values 0x202, 0x1F1, 0x214 ? Yes, but unfortunately bootparam.h

Re: [PATCH 5/5] lguest: loading bzImage directly

2007-10-03 Thread Rusty Russell
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 10:37 +0100, Chris Malley wrote: > Hi guys > > Would it not be clearer to #include and use > the relevant named members of struct setup_header / struct boot_params > rather than the hard-coded values 0x202, 0x1F1, 0x214 ? Yes, but unfortunately bootparam.h wasn't designed

Re: [PATCH 5/5] lguest: loading bzImage directly

2007-10-03 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Chris Malley wrote: Hi guys Would it not be clearer to #include and use the relevant named members of struct setup_header / struct boot_params rather than the hard-coded values 0x202, 0x1F1, 0x214 ? Yes, please. I have a patch in -mm which already does that across the kernel. -

Re: [PATCH 5/5] lguest: loading bzImage directly

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Malley
Hi guys Would it not be clearer to #include and use the relevant named members of struct setup_header / struct boot_params rather than the hard-coded values 0x202, 0x1F1, 0x214 ? -- Chris On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 09:40 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: [snip] > + u8 hdr[1024]; > + int r; > +

[PATCH 5/5] lguest: loading bzImage directly

2007-10-02 Thread Rusty Russell
Now arch/i386/boot/compressed/head.S understands the hardware_platform field, we can directly execute bzImages. No more horrific unpacking code. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Documentation/lguest/lguest.c| 97 -- arch/i386/boot/com