On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.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.
> ---
Almost.
So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why?
Why do you need to free some more room between startup_32 and
startup_64? Do you need this room in another patch, maybe the next one:
"[PATCH v7 14/27] x86, boot: Move lldt/ltr out of 64bit code section"
Is that so? If yes, please write that in the commit message so that we
know why you're doing that change.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
