Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:28:24AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >On 8/28/06, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>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...)
> >
> >So leave as is? Loading address into esi and reference as si?
> >Or modify the whole code to use 16 bits?
> >
> 
> Probably modifying the whole code to use 16 bits, unless there is a 
> specific reason not to (Matt?)

No reason.  I was just trying to be careful, not leaving data in the
upper bits of those registers going uninitialized.  If we know they're
not being used ever, then it's not a problem.  But I don't think
that's the source of the command line size concern, is it?

Thanks,
Matt

-- 
Matt Domsch
Software Architect
Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com
-
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:
  • [PATCH] Fix the EDD code misparsing the command line
    • 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: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

• 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)
    • 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: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Linux v2.6.18-rc5
• Next by Date: Re: Strange transmit corruption in jsm driver on geode sc1200 system
• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]