[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3DFA2707-89A6-4DD2-8DFB-0C2D1ABA1B3C@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:57:10 -0700
From: hpa@...or.com
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
CC: john.hubbard@...il.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/boot: clear some fields explicitly
On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 7/25/19 12:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > It removes the clearing of the range between kbd_status and hdr
>without any
>> > replacement. It neither clears edid_info.
>>
>>
>> Yes. Somehow I left that chunk out. Not my finest hour.
>
>S*** happens
>
>> > + char *p = (char *) boot_params;
>> > + int i;
>> > +
>> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(toclear); i++)
>> > + memset(p + toclear[i].start, 0, toclear[i].len);
>> > }
>> > }
>>
>> Looks nice.
>
>I have no idea whether it works and I have no cycles either, so I would
>appreciate it if you could polish it up so we can handle that new
>fangled
>GCC "feature" nicely.
>
>Alternatively file a bug report to the GCC folks :)
>
>But seriously I think it's not completely insane what they are doing
>and
>the table based approach is definitely more readable and maintainable
>than
>the existing stuff.
>
>Thanks,
>
> tglx
Doing this table based does seem like a good idea.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists