On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:18:48 -0800, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge"
<jeremy@goop.org> said:
Hi,
If it exists, it is well-hidden. A grep for is_paravirt on the testing
tree turns up nothing. Did you get the name right?
I chose to code it exactly this way, because it is what is used in
head_32.S to choose how to start the kernel. Or is this code not
executed at all?
[excerpt form head_32.S]
cmpw $0x207, pa(boot_params + BP_version)
jb default_entry
/* Paravirt-compatible boot parameters. Look to see what
architecture
we're booting under. */
movl pa(boot_params + BP_hardware_subarch), %eax
cmpl $num_subarch_entries, %eax
jae bad_subarch
movl pa(subarch_entries)(,%eax,4), %eax
subl $__PAGE_OFFSET, %eax
jmp *%eax
[and]
subarch_entries:
.long default_entry /* normal x86/PC */
.long lguest_entry /* lguest hypervisor */
.long xen_entry /* Xen hypervisor */
num_subarch_entries = (. - subarch_entries) / 4
[end]
If this is indeed not executed, is there a way to detect whether
we can expect the environment to behave like a normal pc in terms
of magic addresses, bios areas, isa reserved address space and so
on?
Greetings,
Alexander
--
Alexander van Heukelum
heukelum@fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...
--