Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU v1 0/4] multiboot: bss_end_addr can be zero / cleanup

[Jack Schwartz]

Hi Kevin and everyone.

On 2018-03-05 00:13, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 02.03.2018 um 20:32 hat Jack Schwartz geschrieben:
> > Hi Kevin.
> >
> > On 2018-01-15 07:54, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > Am 21.12.2017 um 18:25 hat Jack Schwartz geschrieben:
> > > > Properly account for the possibility of multiboot kernels with a zero
> > > > bss_end_addr.  The Multiboot Specification, section 3.1.3 allows for
> > > > kernels without a bss section, by allowing a zeroed bss_end_addr multiboot
> > > > header field.
> > > >
> > > > Do some cleanup to multiboot.c as well:
> > > > - Remove some unused variables.
> > > > - Use more intuitive header names when displaying fields in messages.
> > > > - Change fprintf(stderr...) to error_report
> > > There are some conflicts with Anatol's (CCed) multiboot series:
> > > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg03003.html
> > >
> > > None if these should be hard to resolve, but it would be good if you
> > > could agree with each other whose patch series should come first, and
> > > then the other one should be rebased on top of that.
> > >
> > > > Testing:
> > > >     1) Ran the "make check" test suite.
> > > >     2) Booted multiboot kernel with bss_end_addr=0.  (I rolled my own
> > > >        grub multiboot.elf test "kernel" by modifying source.)  Verified
> > > >        with gdb that new code that reads addresses/offsets from multiboot
> > > >        header was accessed.
> > > >     3) Booted multiboot kernel with non-zero bss_end_addr.
> > > >     4) Uncommented DEBUG_MULTIBOOT in multiboot.c and verified messages worked.
> > > >     5) Code has soaked in an internal repo for two months.
> > > Can you integrate your test kernel from 2) in tests/multiboot/ so we can
> > > keep this as a regression test?
> > If need be, would you be willing to accept updated versions of these patches
> > (with another review, of course) without the test file?  I will deliver the
> > test file later once I get company approvals.  I don't want the test file to
> > continue holding everything up in the meantime.
> Sure, let's move forward with what we have now. Please keep me CCed when
> you send a new version and I'll give it a review and hopeuflly get it
> merged.
>
> Kevin
Thanks, Kevin.

Patches have not changed, and I verified they still work on a current 
repo.  (Multiboot.c has had a one-line change regarding a header file, 
so I rebuilt and re-tested to make sure.)

Links again, for your reference:

1/4 multiboot: bss_end_addr can be zero
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/852049/

2/4 multiboot: Remove unused variables from multiboot.c
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/852045/

3/4 multiboot: Use header names when displaying fields
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/852046/

4/4 multiboot: fprintf(stderr...) -> error_report()
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/852051/

    Thanks,
    Jack