H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Actually, as far as I can see, he has re-invented having a real-mode
> code chunk which then gets run before the protected-mode kernel. We
> already have that!
I did not claim to have invented anything there, this is just a quite
simple C code to execute instead of the current real mode assembly:
it is a rewrite with obvious advantages/disadvantages.
New features are more that this real-mode function can return an error
to the bootloader to tell something to the user, so the user can select
another kernel with the right processor, another video mode... with
clean error messages - not a crash dump because this assembly
instruction is not for that processor.
I am still saying that the bootloader knows the root filesystem to
be used by the kernel it loads, and that ELF is a clean format to
store different sections to be loaded into memory at predefined
addresses. Also there isn't any more kernel size limit.
Etienne.
___________________________________________________________________________
D?couvrez une nouvelle fa?on d'obtenir des r?ponses ? toutes vos questions !
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des exp?riences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/R?ponses
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
Etienne Lorrain wrote:
> Also there isn't any more kernel size limit.
What kernel size limit?
-hpa
Etienne Lorrain <[email protected]> writes:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Actually, as far as I can see, he has re-invented having a real-mode
>> code chunk which then gets run before the protected-mode kernel. We
>> already have that!
>
> I did not claim to have invented anything there, this is just a quite
> simple C code to execute instead of the current real mode assembly:
> it is a rewrite with obvious advantages/disadvantages.
> New features are more that this real-mode function can return an error
> to the bootloader to tell something to the user, so the user can select
> another kernel with the right processor, another video mode... with
> clean error messages - not a crash dump because this assembly
> instruction is not for that processor.
Having an error handling compatibility that is backwards compatible sounds
interesting.
> I am still saying that the bootloader knows the root filesystem to
> be used by the kernel it loads, and that ELF is a clean format to
> store different sections to be loaded into memory at predefined
> addresses.
Yes. Although when you think sections instead of segments I'm a little
worried.
> Also there isn't any more kernel size limit.
I think as HPA points out we have gotten past that a long time
ago with the bzImage format.
With the right delicacy, and preserving backwards compatibility
with existing bootloaders I think we can achieve things.
The big issue is that sometimes bootloaders are a little bit brittle.
Eric