On 07.02.24 13:02, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 12:43:03 +0100, a ecrit:
On 07.02.24 12:34, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 12:16:44 +0100, a ecrit:
On 07.02.24 12:00, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:42:20 +01
Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 12:43:03 +0100, a ecrit:
> On 07.02.24 12:34, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 12:16:44 +0100, a ecrit:
> > > On 07.02.24 12:00, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:42:20 +0100, a ecrit:
> > > > > while
On 07.02.24 12:34, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 12:16:44 +0100, a ecrit:
On 07.02.24 12:00, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:42:20 +0100, a ecrit:
while implementing kexec in Mini-OS.
Oh, nice :D
For that I need it for sure.
It nee
Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 12:16:44 +0100, a ecrit:
> On 07.02.24 12:00, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:42:20 +0100, a ecrit:
> > > while implementing kexec in Mini-OS.
> >
> > Oh, nice :D
> >
> > > For that I need it for sure.
> >
> > It needs to be don
On 07.02.24 12:00, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:42:20 +0100, a ecrit:
while implementing kexec in Mini-OS.
Oh, nice :D
For that I need it for sure.
It needs to be done by kexec itself then.
That's another option, yes.
The question is whether we want to su
Jürgen Groß, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:42:20 +0100, a ecrit:
> while implementing kexec in Mini-OS.
Oh, nice :D
> For that I need it for sure.
It needs to be done by kexec itself then.
Samuel
On 07.02.2024 11:46, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 07.02.24 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.02.2024 11:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> --- a/arch/x86/setup.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/setup.c
>>> @@ -184,6 +184,8 @@ arch_init(void *par)
>>> {
>>> static char hello[] = "Bootstrapping...\n";
>>>
>>> +
On 07/02/2024 10:42 am, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 07.02.24 11:38, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> Juergen Gross, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:31:38 +0100, a ecrit:
>>> The .bss segment should be zeroed at very early boot.
>>
>> Is that not done by the elf loader of Xen?
>
> It might be done by Xen tools today,
On 07.02.2024 11:42, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 07.02.24 11:38, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> Juergen Gross, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:31:38 +0100, a ecrit:
>>> The .bss segment should be zeroed at very early boot.
>>
>> Is that not done by the elf loader of Xen?
>
> It might be done by Xen tools today, b
On 07.02.24 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.2024 11:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
--- a/arch/x86/setup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/setup.c
@@ -184,6 +184,8 @@ arch_init(void *par)
{
static char hello[] = "Bootstrapping...\n";
+ memset(&__bss_start, 0, &_end - &__bss_start);
Doesn't / shouldn't
On 07.02.24 11:38, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Juergen Gross, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:31:38 +0100, a ecrit:
The .bss segment should be zeroed at very early boot.
Is that not done by the elf loader of Xen?
It might be done by Xen tools today, but I'm quite sure it is not part
of the ABI. The hype
On 07.02.2024 11:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/setup.c
> @@ -184,6 +184,8 @@ arch_init(void *par)
> {
> static char hello[] = "Bootstrapping...\n";
>
> + memset(&__bss_start, 0, &_end - &__bss_start);
Doesn't / shouldn't the loader guarantee this?
Juergen Gross, le mer. 07 févr. 2024 11:31:38 +0100, a ecrit:
> The .bss segment should be zeroed at very early boot.
Is that not done by the elf loader of Xen?
> While adding the extern declaration of __bss_start for x86, make it
> together with the other linker table defined section boundaries
13 matches
Mail list logo
