Claim an ID number for Xen in the LOADER_TYPE field.
Also, keep the table in zero-page.txt consistent with boot.txt.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
===================================================================
--- a/Documentation/i386/boot.txt
+++ b/Documentation/i386/boot.txt
@@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ filled out, however:
5 ELILO
7 GRuB
8 U-BOOT
+ 9 Xen
Please contact <[email protected]> if you need a bootloader ID
value assigned.
===================================================================
--- a/Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt
+++ b/Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt
@@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ 0x210 char LOADER_TYPE, = 0, old one
2 for bootsect-loader
3 for SYSLINUX
4 for ETHERBOOT
+ 5 for ELILO
+ 7 for GRuB
+ 8 for U-BOOT
+ 9 for Xen
V = version
0x211 char loadflags:
bit0 = 1: kernel is loaded high (bzImage)
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 04:55:30PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ filled out, however:
> 5 ELILO
> 7 GRuB
> 8 U-BOOT
> + 9 Xen
>
> Please contact <[email protected]> if you need a bootloader ID
> value assigned.
> ===================================================================
> --- a/Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt
> @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ 0x210 char LOADER_TYPE, = 0, old one
> 2 for bootsect-loader
> 3 for SYSLINUX
> 4 for ETHERBOOT
> + 5 for ELILO
> + 7 for GRuB
> + 8 for U-BOOT
> + 9 for Xen
> V = version
> 0x211 char loadflags:
Is there a reason 6 has been skipped ?
Dave
Dave Jones wrote:
> > 4 for ETHERBOOT
> > + 5 for ELILO
> > + 7 for GRuB
> > + 8 for U-BOOT
> > + 9 for Xen
> > V = version
> > 0x211 char loadflags:
>
> Is there a reason 6 has been skipped ?
>
HPA told me to use 9. Maybe there's an unofficial user for 6?
J
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
>> > 4 for ETHERBOOT
>> > + 5 for ELILO
>> > + 7 for GRuB
>> > + 8 for U-BOOT
>> > + 9 for Xen
>> > V = version
>> > 0x211 char loadflags:
>>
>> Is there a reason 6 has been skipped ?
>>
>
> HPA told me to use 9. Maybe there's an unofficial user for 6?
>
6 was skipped because I couldn't rule out that it hadn't been
unofficially used. It seemed easier to skip it for now.
-hpa