Hi  Keir ,
<br/><br/>rhel5.7s‘ xen version is :
<br/>kernel-2.6.18-268.el5.src.rpm
<br/>xen-3.0.3-132.el5.src.rpm
<br/><br/>thanks very much for your sustained help on this issue.
<br/>Do you mean this link ?
<br/><a href="http://xenbits.xensource.com/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/3b481059a54d" target="_top" rel="nofollow" link="external">http://xenbits.xensource.com/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/3b481059a54d</a><br/>from your xen.org , I find <a href="http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/" target="_top" rel="nofollow" link="external">http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/</a><br/>there are many branches and one unstable hg。
<br/><br/><br/>I have a doubt , from this link , I can see this last update date is 2007 year.
<br/>and in config.h BOOT_TRAMPOLINE was still 0x94000 . It seems that 5
<br/>days ago : BOOT_TRAMPOLINE has just been set 0x7c000 (certainly, I we
<br/>all think 0x7c000 is very very reasonable,this should be the most
<br/>right value) .
<br/><br/>I want to confirm :
<br/>Do you &nbsp;think BOOT_TRAMPOLINE ’s value is independent on any other
<br/>later code ? &nbsp;I prefer this idea to be right. it seems that your
<br/>comments page code that just make BOOT_TRAMPOLINE definition
<br/>independent.
<br/>if yes , I will try your comments plus BOOT_TRAMPOLINE 0X7C000
<br/><br/>anway , I will try both 0x94000 and 0x7c000(this will be widely
<br/>suitable for all platform ).
<br/>
	
<br/><hr align="left" width="300" />
View this message in context: <a href="http://xen.1045712.n5.nabble.com/xen-kernel-and-EDD-tp4710939p4729847.html">Re: xen-kernel and EDD</a><br/>
Sent from the <a href="http://xen.1045712.n5.nabble.com/Xen-Dev-f2473738.html">Xen - Dev mailing list archive</a> at Nabble.com.<br/>