[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48695FD5.7000605@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:36:05 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Sean Young <sean@...s.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regression: boot failure on AMD Elan TS-5500
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> startup_32:
>>>> cld
>>>> /* test KEEP_SEGMENTS flag to see if the bootloader is asking
>>>> * us to not reload segments */
>>>> testb $(1<<6), BP_loadflags(%esi)
>>>> jnz 1f
>>>>
>>>> cli
>>>> movl $(__BOOT_DS),%eax
>>>> movl %eax,%ds
>>>> movl %eax,%es
>>>> movl %eax,%fs
>>>> movl %eax,%gs
>>>> movl %eax,%ss
>>>> 1:
>
> On this general subject... I keep thinking that it would be better to
> have this as:
>
> movl %cs, %eax
> addl $8, %eax
> movl %eax, %cs
What's your intent? You can't directly load %cs; do you mean the other
segment registers?
>
> ... instead of a hard-coded constant. That actually removes all
> hard-coded uses of BOOT_CS/BOOT_DS until we eventually load the
> kernel's own boot GDT at head_32.S:94.
>
> Does anyone see any problem with that? As far as I can tell, we're
> requiring %cs == BOOT_CS for the current code anyway (unless
> KEEP_SEGMENTS), but %ds == %cs + 8 seems like a more sensible
> requirement.
>
Oh, you mean
mov %cs, %eax
add $8, %eax
mov %eax, %ds (etc)
?
Seems reasonable.
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