[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <472F7D8D.8050505@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:31:09 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mikael Petterson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86 setup: correct booting on 486 (revised)
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> However, that being said, doing so is trivial, and it might help some
>>> debugging hack; anything that makes debugging easier is a Good Thing[TM].
>> Yeah. Even if it was just re-using the boot-time stack area temporarily,
>> just to give code the choice to use a common set of instructions.
>
> If I had to do it from scratch today I would make the 32-bit entry
> point require a stack, segments and use C calling conventions to pass
> struct boot_params *.
>
> Besides %esi I'm not really fond of requiring anything in the 32bit
> entrypoint. At the same time I totally agree that it is always nice
> to provide way more then you need.
>
Nailing down the interface as hard as possible is a good idea, to avoid
tying your hands for the future.
-hpa
-
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