Alexander Graf wrote:
On Mar 12, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Is it really necessary to have *that much* assembly code within
hw/pc.c?
I would rather see multiboot support as a small image ge
On Mar 12, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Is it really necessary to have *that much* assembly code within hw/
pc.c?
I would rather see multiboot support as a small image generated from
C and/or
On Mar 12, 2008, at 12:44 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Hi,
I like this idea. When I just tried to load my multiboot kernel it
failed, though, because of the following piece of code:
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Is it really necessary to have *that much* assembly code within hw/pc.c?
I would rather see multiboot support as a small image generated from
C and/or assembly code, loaded either with -hda or with a new op
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:31:09PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like this idea. When I just tried to load my multiboot kernel it
>> failed, though, because of the following piece of code:
>>
>>> +// XXX: multiboot header may b
Alexander Graf schrieb:
> I also implemented module parameters. Kevin needed this to boot a
> homebrew kernel.
Well, in fact you needed it for Xen as well. ;-)
This new version of the patch works fine for me.
Kevin
On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Hi,
I like this idea. When I just tried to load my multiboot kernel it
failed, though, because of the following piece of code:
+// XXX: multiboot header may be within the first 8192 bytes,
but header
+// is only the first 1024
+
On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Hi,
I like this idea. When I just tried to load my multiboot kernel it
failed, though, because of the following piece of code:
+// XXX: multiboot header may be within the first 8192 bytes,
but header
+// is only the first 1024
+
Hi,
I like this idea. When I just tried to load my multiboot kernel it
failed, though, because of the following piece of code:
> +// XXX: multiboot header may be within the first 8192 bytes, but header
> +// is only the first 1024
> +
> +// Ok, let's see if it is a multib
Hi,
this patch implements x86 Multiboot support for the -kernel way of
booting the virtual machine. Multiboot is a new approach to get rid of
different bootloaders, providing a unified interface for the kernel.
It supports command line options and kernel modules. The two probably
best kno
10 matches
Mail list logo
