[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803211052110.3754@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:57:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: questions about header.S
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Cao jin wrote:
> On 03/17/2018 06:01 PM, Cao jin wrote:
> > I find two small questions which confuse me a little.
> >
> > 1.
> > # Check signature at end of setup
> > cmpl $0x5a5aaa55, setup_sig
> > jne setup_bad
> >
> > setup_sig is defined in setup.ld, which points to the constant also
> > defined in setup.ld, so I don't figure out in which case they don't
> > equal and jump to setup_bad?
That's a lame sanity check to make sure that nothing overwrote the loader.
> > In my test, drop these 2 lines seems fine, system can boot without any
> > obvious error.
Sure it does as long as you have no corruption.
> > 2.
> > # Zero the bss
> > movw $__bss_start, %di
> > movw $_end+3, %cx
> > xorl %eax, %eax
> > subw %di, %cx
> > shrw $2, %cx
> > rep; stosl
> >
> > It is not a big deal, but I think replace "_end" with "__bss_end" make
> > more sense, and "_end" is already aligned to word length. And, there is
> > no other code use symbol "__bss_end". So I don't know is there any
> > reason to use "_end" here?
It doesn't matter at all. But its also pointless to change it.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists