Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> +Protocol: 2.07+
>> +
>> + A pointer to data that is specific to hardware subarch
>>
>
> Do we care particularly? If 8 bytes is enough for the subarch, do we
> care whether its a pointer or literal? After all, this is just a private
> channel between the bootloader and some subarch-specific piece of code
> in the kernel.
>
I see two options: either we make it a pointer *and a length* so that a
loader can reshuffle it at will (that also implies no absolute pointers
within the data), or it's an opaque cookie anyway.
-hpa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
