[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQUSoSvtFMMQt3eZkrXFCkzXhLu6GfqYMGNb3=uA052Axw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:44:55 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode
after 0x200
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:01:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
>
> And you're moving this down because of the couple of bytes the next
> patch is adding? If so, then explain that here.
better?
---
Subject: [PATCH] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode down
We need to move some code with 32bit section in following patch:
x86, boot: Move lldt/ltr out of 64bit code section
but that will push startup_64 down from 0x200.
According to hpa, we can not change startup_64 to other offset and
that become ABI now.
We could move function verify_cpu and no_longmode down, because
verify_cpu is used via function call and no_longmode will not
return.
---
--
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