Message ID | 20190116174941.342900-1-sgarzare@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | pvh: add new PVH option rom | expand |
On 16/01/19 18:49, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > This patch series is based on "[PATCH v3 0/4] QEMU changes to do PVH boot" and > provides a PVH option rom that can be used with SeaBIOS to boot uncompressed > kernel using the x86/HVM direct boot ABI. > > Patches 1 and 2 are to prepare the PVH option rom, moving common functions in > the new headers. Patch 3 adds the new PVH option rom. Patch 4 uses it when we > are booting an uncompressed kernel using the x86/HVM direct boot ABI. Patch 5 > adds the support of loading the initrd in the PVH option rom. > > Based-on: <1547554687-12687-1-git-send-email-liam.merwick@oracle.com> I get this: CC optionrom/pvh_main.o /tmp/ccoel69H.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/ccoel69H.s:171: Error: attempt to move .org backwards when applying this series on CentOS 7. Paolo
On 16/01/19 19:31, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 16/01/19 18:49, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >> This patch series is based on "[PATCH v3 0/4] QEMU changes to do PVH boot" and >> provides a PVH option rom that can be used with SeaBIOS to boot uncompressed >> kernel using the x86/HVM direct boot ABI. >> >> Patches 1 and 2 are to prepare the PVH option rom, moving common functions in >> the new headers. Patch 3 adds the new PVH option rom. Patch 4 uses it when we >> are booting an uncompressed kernel using the x86/HVM direct boot ABI. Patch 5 >> adds the support of loading the initrd in the PVH option rom. >> >> Based-on: <1547554687-12687-1-git-send-email-liam.merwick@oracle.com> > > I get this: > > CC optionrom/pvh_main.o > /tmp/ccoel69H.s: Assembler messages: > /tmp/ccoel69H.s:171: Error: attempt to move .org backwards > > when applying this series on CentOS 7. Oops, the issue was actaually in linux_dma - I was confused by make -j reordering the output. The fix is trivial --- a/pc-bios/optionrom/linuxboot_dma.c +++ b/pc-bios/optionrom/linuxboot_dma.c @@ -20,10 +20,6 @@ * Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> */ -#include <stdint.h> -#include "optrom.h" -#include "optrom_fw_cfg.h" - asm( ".text\n" ".global _start\n" @@ -62,6 +58,10 @@ asm( " jmp load_kernel\n" ); +#include <stdint.h> +#include "optrom.h" +#include "optrom_fw_cfg.h" + static inline void set_es(void *addr) { uint32_t seg = (uint32_t)addr >> 4; Also, the $? in the new rule should be $^. I wouldn't use a pattern rule for that, writing it explicitly as "pvh.img: pvh.S pvh_main.c" Thanks, Paolo
Hi Paolo, On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:17:15PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 16/01/19 19:31, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > I get this: > > > > CC optionrom/pvh_main.o > > /tmp/ccoel69H.s: Assembler messages: > > /tmp/ccoel69H.s:171: Error: attempt to move .org backwards > > > > when applying this series on CentOS 7. > > Oops, the issue was actaually in linux_dma - I was confused by make -j > reordering the output. The fix is trivial Thanks for the fix! I didn't have this error on Fedora 29 (gcc 8.2.1). > > --- a/pc-bios/optionrom/linuxboot_dma.c > +++ b/pc-bios/optionrom/linuxboot_dma.c > @@ -20,10 +20,6 @@ > * Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> > */ > > -#include <stdint.h> > -#include "optrom.h" > -#include "optrom_fw_cfg.h" > - > asm( > ".text\n" > ".global _start\n" > @@ -62,6 +58,10 @@ asm( > " jmp load_kernel\n" > ); > > +#include <stdint.h> > +#include "optrom.h" > +#include "optrom_fw_cfg.h" > + > static inline void set_es(void *addr) > { > uint32_t seg = (uint32_t)addr >> 4; > > > Also, the $? in the new rule should be $^. I wouldn't use a pattern > rule for that, writing it explicitly as "pvh.img: pvh.S pvh_main.c" I'll fix the Makefile. Thanks, Stefano > > Thanks, > > Paolo
On 17/01/19 08:50, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >> Also, the $? in the new rule should be $^. I wouldn't use a pattern >> rule for that, writing it explicitly as "pvh.img: pvh.S pvh_main.c" > I'll fix the Makefile. (of course it's "pvh.img: pvh.o pvh_main.o"). I can fix up as well if it's okay for you. Paolo
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:31:27AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 17/01/19 08:50, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > >> Also, the $? in the new rule should be $^. I wouldn't use a pattern > >> rule for that, writing it explicitly as "pvh.img: pvh.S pvh_main.c" > > I'll fix the Makefile. > > (of course it's "pvh.img: pvh.o pvh_main.o"). > > I can fix up as well if it's okay for you. I already sent a v4 fixing your comments (and I put "pvh.img: pvh.o pvh_main.o" :) ), but if want to fix this series is okay for me. Thanks, Stefano