On Friday 11 May 2007 8:23 pm, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Kevin Winchester wrote:
> > Not sure if you were looking for testing, but I fuzzed it to apply to
> > 2.6.21-git and gave it a spin. Worked just like a normal boot (which I
> > assume was the point).
>
> That would be the point, yes :) Looki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Kevin Winchester wrote:
>> Not sure if you were looking for testing, but I fuzzed it to apply to
>> 2.6.21-git and gave it a spin. Worked just like a normal boot (which I
>> assume was the point).
>
> That would be the point,
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Ok. If you have tested on a wide variety of machines then I won't
> worry about it.
>
> I guess if a cr0 write has always been synchronizing things should be
> a safe practice. The practical danger is if you write to cr0 and the
> pipeline is not flushed and the segmen
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Even on 386 and 486 class cpus?
>>
>
> Yes, even on 386 and 486 class CPUs. I have personally tested this on
> machines as old as the original "double sigma" 386-16.
Ok. If you have tested on a wide variety of machi
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Even on 386 and 486 class cpus?
>
Yes, even on 386 and 486 class CPUs. I have personally tested this on
machines as old as the original "double sigma" 386-16.
> To some extent if the rules don't change it makes sense for them to
> copy the information from one gene
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> HPA is both right and wrong on this. The safe sequence for entering
>> protected mode requires a jump immediately after setting PE in %cr0.
>> To serialize the instruction stream and to be on an execution that
>> is te
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> HPA is both right and wrong on this. The safe sequence for entering
> protected mode requires a jump immediately after setting PE in %cr0.
> To serialize the instruction stream and to be on an execution that
> is tested and guaranteed to work in cpus.
>
Eric, that's
Alexander van Heukelum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:48:08PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I can confirm that it works for at least one computer over here (a six
> months old x86_64 machine with ATI ES1000-based on-board graphics). Some
> non-vesa modes including a nic
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:48:08PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > It doesn't probe the hardware in dangerous ways. (Search for mode_scan
> > in video.S) It works by trying to set a mode via the normal
> > AH=0/AL=mode/int 0x10 method for all possible values of mode. It then
> > checks if the bios
Kevin Winchester wrote:
> Not sure if you were looking for testing, but I fuzzed it to apply to
> 2.6.21-git and gave it a spin. Worked just like a normal boot (which I
> assume was the point).
That would be the point, yes :) Looking for breakage in video mode
detection, memory detection, and AP
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I believe the x86 setup tree is now finished. I will turn it into a
> "clean patchset" later this week, but I wanted to get flamed^W feedback
> on it first.
>
> The git tree is at:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/hpa/linux-2.6-newsetup.git;a=sum
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:15:21PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I believe the x86 setup tree is now finished. I will turn it into a
> "clean patchset" later this week, but I wanted to get flamed^W feedback
> on it first.
>
> The git tree is at:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linu
Martin Mares wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> As far as I could tell, "scan" simply caused the nonstandard video
>> driver scan modules (unsafe probes) to be invoked. Since those modules
>> are no longer present, there appeared to be no need for them. The VGA
>> and VESA probes are safe.
>
> "scan" is stil
Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:08:10AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> As far as I could tell, "scan" simply caused the nonstandard video
>> driver scan modules (unsafe probes) to be invoked. Since those modules
>> are no longer present, there appeared to be no need for
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:08:10AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> As far as I could tell, "scan" simply caused the nonstandard video
> driver scan modules (unsafe probes) to be invoked. Since those modules
> are no longer present, there appeared to be no need for them. The VGA
> and VESA probes a
Hello!
> As far as I could tell, "scan" simply caused the nonstandard video
> driver scan modules (unsafe probes) to be invoked. Since those modules
> are no longer present, there appeared to be no need for them. The VGA
> and VESA probes are safe.
"scan" is still useful, because it is able to
Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Only tiny sparks^Wremarks, I'm afraid. ;)
>
> I've briefly looked at the new code in arch/i386/boot and as far
> as I can determine in a short amount of time all functionality is
> basically there, with the exception of the 'scan' functionality for
> bio
On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:15:21 -0700, "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> I believe the x86 setup tree is now finished. I will turn it into a
> "clean patchset" later this week, but I wanted to get flamed^W feedback
> on it first.
Hi!
Only tiny sparks^Wremarks, I'm afraid. ;)
I've briefl
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:02:45AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/hpa/newsetup-36f021b5.patch
> >
> > Are you planning to rebase to -linus and then let
> > arch/x86_64/boot/Makefile be a reference to i386/boot/Makefile?
> >
>
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/hpa/newsetup-36f021b5.patch
>
> Are you planning to rebase to -linus and then let
> arch/x86_64/boot/Makefile be a reference to i386/boot/Makefile?
>
> The patch for kbuild to enable this is in -linus now.
>
> As for the import
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:15:21PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I believe the x86 setup tree is now finished. I will turn it into a
> "clean patchset" later this week, but I wanted to get flamed^W feedback
> on it first.
>
> The git tree is at:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linu
Hello all,
I believe the x86 setup tree is now finished. I will turn it into a
"clean patchset" later this week, but I wanted to get flamed^W feedback
on it first.
The git tree is at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/hpa/linux-2.6-newsetup.git;a=summary
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/lin
22 matches
Mail list logo
