Re: [Xen-devel] ELF headers

On Tuesday 28 March 2006 12:20, Christian Limpach wrote:
> On 3/28/06, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 March 2006 02:49, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > +         * bug comparibility alert: old linux kernels used to have
> > > +         * virtual addresses in the paddr headers, whereas newer ones
> > > +         * (since kexec merge, around 2.6.14) correctly use physical
> > > +         * addresses.
> >
> > I can't speak for IA64, but PPC kernels still have virtual addresses in 
the
> > paddr fields. Accordingly, I would reword it like this:
> >         Some Linux kernels have virtual addresses in the paddr headers, 
and some
> >         correctly use physical addresses.
> 
> How is that correct?  The ELF spec is quite vague on what is supposed
> to be in the paddr fields...

It seems to me that 0xc000000000000000 is not supposed to be in a field that 
contains a "physical address". Is that in question?

-- 
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 07/35] Make LOAD_OFFSET defined by subarch, Christian Limpach

Next by Date:

[XenPPC] [pushed][ppc] cleanup deliver_ee(), jimix

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 07/35] Make LOAD_OFFSET defined by subarch, Christian Limpach

Next by Thread:

[XenPPC] [pushed][ppc] cleanup deliver_ee(), jimix

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]