|
From: | Andrew Cooper |
Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 08/23] x86: add multiboot2 protocol support |
Date: | Sat, 15 Aug 2015 07:00:35 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 |
On 14/08/15 11:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.08.15 at 21:22, <address@hidden> wrote:On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 03:17:48PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:29:03PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:@@ -34,6 +57,42 @@ multiboot1_header_start: /*** MULTIBOOT1 HEADER ****/ .long -(MULTIBOOT_HEADER_MAGIC + MULTIBOOT_HEADER_FLAGS) multiboot1_header_end: +/*** MULTIBOOT2 HEADER ****/ +/* Some ideas are taken from grub-2.00/grub-core/tests/boot/kernel-i386.S file. */ + .align MULTIBOOT2_HEADER_ALIGN + +.Lmultiboot2_header:How come you use .L? It makes this hidden while the multiboot1 headers are visible? Makes it a bit harder to see the contents of this under an debugger.Good point. IIRC, Jan asked about that. I will remove .L if he does not object.For this particular one I think it's okay to drop the .L, but generally I'd like to see .L used more widely for any auxiliary labels (i.e. only "main" labels - function entry points and data objects - should have their labels present in the final symbol table).
In general I would agree.However, the multiboot 1 and 2 headers are special. They are binary data included in the .text section, so having non-local lables makes the disassembly easier to read.
~Andrew
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |