On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A couple general comments.
>
> I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the int13 handler returning an int and
> the asm stub code uses that result to determine how to set CF. You set CF
> deep within the function stack an
A couple general comments.
I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the int13 handler returning an int
and the asm stub code uses that result to determine how to set CF. You
set CF deep within the function stack and there's no guarantee that GCC
isn't going to stomp on it.
I also don't think we w
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> A couple general comments.
>
> I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the int13 handler returning an
> int and the asm stub code uses that result to determine how to set
> CF. You set CF deep within the function stack and there's no
> guarantee that GCC isn't going to sto
Nguyen Anh Quynh wrote:
> Hi Anthony,
>
> I found a bug in the last code: send_command() failed to copy back the
> result into extboot_cmd structure. This patch fixes it.
>
> I succesfully tested this version with guest Win2K (fully updated,
> scsi boot) and Linux 2.6.25-rc8 (virtio).
>
> Let me kn
Hi Anthony,
I found a bug in the last code: send_command() failed to copy back the
result into extboot_cmd structure. This patch fixes it.
I succesfully tested this version with guest Win2K (fully updated,
scsi boot) and Linux 2.6.25-rc8 (virtio).
Let me know if you can boot Windows with this ve
