Ingo Molnar wrote: > * [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> there's one problem with the patch: it breaks things that need the >>> low 1MB executable (e.g. APM bios32 calls). It would at a minimum be >>> needed to exclude the BIOS area in 0xd0000-0xfffff. >>> >>> Ingo >> >> I wrote it to make everything below 1MB executable, if it isn't RAM >> according to the e820 map, which should include the BIOS area. This >> includes 0xd0000-0xffff on my system. Do you think I should >> explicity make 0xd0000-0xfffff executable regardless of the e820 map? > > hm ... which portion does this? I'm looking at fixnx2.patch. I > definitely saw a APM bootup crash due to this, but that was on a > 2.4-ish backport of the patch. > > Ingo Oh, sorry, we're talking about two different patches. I sent in a different patch yesterday, because Andi Kleen didn't seem very enthusiastic about fixnx2.patch. Here's the patch that I sent yesterday (attached as file init.c.patch). Thanks Stuart
Attachment:
init.c.patch
Description: init.c.patch
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: page allocation/attributes question (i386/x86_64 specific)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: page allocation/attributes question (i386/x86_64 specific)
- Prev by Date: Re: files_lock deadlock?
- Next by Date: Re: Synaptics and TrackPoint problems in 2.6.12
- Previous by thread: Re: page allocation/attributes question (i386/x86_64 specific)
- Next by thread: Re: page allocation/attributes question (i386/x86_64 specific)
- Index(es):