On 26/06/2016 10:30, Dirk Behme wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi Dirk,
On 26.06.2016 10:29, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Dirk,
On 26/06/2016 06:47, Dirk Behme wrote:
On 23.06.2016 17:18, Julien Grall wrote:
On 23/06/16 07:38, Dirk Behme wrote:
+ uint64_t res2;
uint64_t res3;
uint64_t res4;
- uint64_t res5;
- uint32_t magic1;
- uint32_t res6;
+ uint32_t magic; /* Magic number, little endian,
"ARM\x64" */
+ uint32_t res5;
} zimage;
uint64_t start, end;
@@ -354,20 +353,30 @@ static int kernel_zimage64_probe(struct
kernel_info *info,
copy_from_paddr(&zimage, addr, sizeof(zimage));
- if ( zimage.magic0 != ZIMAGE64_MAGIC_V0 &&
- zimage.magic1 != ZIMAGE64_MAGIC_V1 )
+ if ( zimage.magic != ZIMAGE64_MAGIC ) {
+ printk(XENLOG_ERR "No valid magic found in header! Kernel
too old?\n");
I have found why there were no error messages here before. The
function kernel_probe will try the different formats supported one by
one.
So this message will be printed if the kernel is an ARM32 image, which
will confuse the user. So I would print this message only when
zimage.magic0 is equal to ZIMAGE64_MAGIC_V0.
Which we don't have with the recent header format any more.
Well, we control the structure in Xen. So we could re-introduce the
field magic0 through an union.
> This does
mean I drop this message again, as it doesn't make sense if the
magic is
used for the format detection.
I would still prefer to keep an error message when only MAGIC_V0 is
present. This will avoid people to spend time understanding why it
does not work anymore.
This way
if ( zimage.magic != ZIMAGE64_MAGIC ) {
if ( zimage.magic0 == ZIMAGE64_MAGIC_V0 )
printk(XENLOG_ERR "No valid magic found in header! Kernel
too old?\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
with magic0 being a union with code0?
Yes, although I would drop the question marks at the end of the second
sentence. We know that the kernel is too old.
Thank you for doing this.
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
