[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50D25128.7030205@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:43:36 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/microcode] x86/microcode_intel_early.c: Early update
ucode on Intel's CPU
On 12/19/2012 03:40 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> The other bit is that building the real kernel page tables iteratively
>> (ignoring the early page tables here) is safer, since the real page
>> table builder is fully aware of the memory map. This means any
>> "spillover" from the early page tables gets minimized to regions where
>> there are data objects that have to be accessed early. Since Yinghai
>> already had iterative page table building working, I don't see any
>> reason to not use that capability.
>
> that is v6, right?
>
> including that patch
>
No, that's just a different way to create the early page tables (and it
doesn't solve anything, quite on the contrary.) I'm talking about the
strategy for creating the *permanent* page tables
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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