[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080223090739.GB6747@cvg>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:07:39 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Q] x86 - boot/header.S
[Yinghai Lu - Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:44:49AM -0800]
| On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
| > Hi Peter, Sam,
| >
| > could you take a look on x86/boot/header.S:280 please?
| >
| > # Zero the bss
| > movw $__bss_start, %di
| > movw $_end+3, %cx
| > xorl %eax, %eax
| > subw %di, %cx
| > shrw $2, %cx
| > rep; stosl
| >
| > I wonder why is $_end there instead of $__bss_stop?
| > Well, accroding to vmlinux_32.lsd both _end and __bss_stop
| > are the same BUT __bss_stop is more convenient methink.
| > Would it be usefull to change?
|
| we should have head32.c like head64.c
| and x86_32_start_kernel.
|
| Eric's patch long time ago...
|
| YH
|
Hi Yinghai,
thanks for reply BUT that is not the point (or maybe I miss something).
Look, we only have head64.c - there is no head32.c at all. Both
vmlinux_32/64.lds defines _end exactly the same as __bss_stop. So in
code which DO fillup bss section with zeros the prefered name is
__bss_stop. The only thing I'm trying to say that it would be clean
naming scheme and I think it would help for further review - instead
of searching all over x86 files to find _end definition __bss_stop
tell us WHAT we are zeroing from the code.
- Cyrill -
--
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