[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4672BF82.9050101@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:34:10 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
v12n <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Xen-Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] i386: clean up bzImage generation
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> -setup_move_size: .word 0x8000 # size to move, when setup is not
>> +setup_move_size: .word _setup_size # size to move, when setup is not
>> # loaded at 0x90000. We will move setup
>> # to 0x90000 then just before jumping
>> # into the kernel. However, only the
>>
>
> This is WRONG and will break 2.00 protocol bootloaders, if any still
> exist, and quite possibly some 2.01 protocol bootloaders. There are
> definitiely bootloaders in the field that rely on this implicit value.
>
Ah, I see. I didn't see any documentation saying that this must be
0x8000. Or does _setup_size just have to be <= 0x8000?
>> @@ -246,7 +246,6 @@ setup2:
>> jnz 1f
>> movw $0xfffc, %sp # Make sure we're not zero
>> 1: movzwl %sp, %esp # Clear upper half of %esp
>> - sti
>>
>
> Motivation, please?
>
We talked about this, and you said it was a mistake. It needn't be in
this patch; it could be separate, or just dropped as far as I'm concerned.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists