Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-21 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:58:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > > So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why? > > > > Why do you need to free some more room

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-19 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:58:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > > So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why? > > > > Why do you need to free some more room

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-19 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > 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 p

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-19 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Borislav Petkov 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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-18 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Borislav Petkov 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 t

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-15 Thread Borislav Petkov
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. > According to hpa, we can not change startup_64 to ot