Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
Better patch.I've noticed that this code sets esi but then reference using si... So fixed to use esi (It worked so far since we are in low area... But I think using the sameregister type is cleaner...)
Totally pointless since we're in 16-bit mode (as is the "incl %esi")... I guess it's "better" in the sense that if we run out of that we'll crash due to a segment overrun... maybe (some BIOSes leave us unknowningly in big real mode...)
-hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- From: Alon Bar-Lev <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- From: Alon Bar-Lev <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 6/7] remove all remaining _syscallX macros
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
- Index(es):
 |