On 01/07/2007 07:07 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
Doing the set_fs() and pagefault_{disable,enable} calls for every
single byte during the checksum seems rather silly.
Why?
Because it makes for dumb code. But oh well, given that it all compiles
to basically nothing I
Rene Herman wrote:
> Doing the set_fs() and pagefault_{disable,enable} calls for every
> single byte during the checksum seems rather silly.
Why? It's a bit of a performance hit, but that doesn't matter here.
probe_kernel_address() is semantically the right thing to be using;
open-coding its con
On 01/07/2007 11:20 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
How is it for efficiency? I thought it was for correctness.
romsignature is using probe_kernel_adress() while all other accesses
to the ROMs there aren't.
If nothing else, anyone reading that code is likely to ask himself
Rene Herman wrote:
> How is it for efficiency? I thought it was for correctness.
> romsignature is using probe_kernel_adress() while all other accesses
> to the ROMs there aren't.
>
> If nothing else, anyone reading that code is likely to ask himself the
> very same question -- why the one, and not
On 01/07/2007 09:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
In your opinion, is the attached (versus 2.6.20-rc3) better? This
uses probe_kernel_address() for all accesses. Or rather, an
expanded version thereof. The set_fs() and
pagefault_{disable,enable} calls are only done once in
Rene Herman wrote:
> In your opinion, is the attached (versus 2.6.20-rc3) better? This uses
> probe_kernel_address() for all accesses. Or rather, an expanded
> version thereof. The set_fs() and pagefault_{disable,enable} calls are
> only done once in probe_roms().
>
> Accessing the length byte at r
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Well, in the Xen case, where the pages are simply not mapped, then
the signature simply won't exist. In other cases, I guess its
possible the signature might exist but the rest of the ROM doesn't,
but that won't happen on normal hardware.
In your opinion, is the att
Rene Herman wrote:
> Jeremy? Is it okay to only check the signature word? The checksum will
> generally be done over more than 1 (hw) page... That "presumably"
> there seems a bit flaky?
Well, in the Xen case, where the pages are simply not mapped, then the
signature simply won't exist. In other
Zachary Amsden wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
Hmm, by the way, if romsignature() needs this
probe_kernel_address() thing, why doesn't romchecksum()?
I assume it's all in the same page, but CC'ing Zach is easier than
reading the code 8)
Some hypervisors don't emulate the
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 01:53 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
Use adding __init to romsignature() (it's only called from probe_roms()
which is itself __init) as an excuse to submit a pedantic cleanup.
Hmm, by the way, if romsignature() needs this
On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 01:53 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> Rene Herman wrote:
>
> > Use adding __init to romsignature() (it's only called from probe_roms()
> > which is itself __init) as an excuse to submit a pedantic cleanup.
>
> Hmm, by the way, if romsignature() needs this probe_kernel_address()
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 01:53 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
Hmm, by the way, if romsignature() needs this probe_kernel_address()
thing, why doesn't romchecksum()?
I assume it's all in the same page, but CC'ing Zach is easier than
reading the code 8)
If we're talking hardwar
Rene Herman wrote:
Use adding __init to romsignature() (it's only called from probe_roms()
which is itself __init) as an excuse to submit a pedantic cleanup.
Hmm, by the way, if romsignature() needs this probe_kernel_address()
thing, why doesn't romchecksum()?
(Rusty in CC as author of bd47
Hi Andrew.
Use adding __init to romsignature() (it's only called from probe_roms()
which is itself __init) as an excuse to submit a pedantic cleanup.
Signed-off-by: Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/e820.c b/arch/i386/kernel/e820.c
index f391abc..2565fac 100644
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
