Re: [PATCH] i386: always clear bss

Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> writes:

> BTW, I should have marked this as an RFC comment, rather than an actual
> submission.  We don't need it for .22.
>
>> NAK.  
>>
>> Skipping the segment register load is likely fine.
>> Supporting V!=P at startup_32 is not.
>>   
>
> Why?
>
>> Assuming that we have a stack at startup_32 is not.
>>
>> If you want to figure out where the kernel is loaded you can do
>> (from arch/i386/boot/head.S)
>>   
>
> Yes, that's more or less the same code, aside from using 0x40(%esi) as a
> stack.  Would that be OK here?

Using 0x40 as a stack would be ok.

There are issues with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE and V!=P that I'm not
comfortable with yet, because we can't tell the difference.

Eric
-
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] i386: always clear bss
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] i386: always clear bss
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] i386: always clear bss
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: [PATCH] i386: always clear bss
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Revert "[PATCH] paravirt: Add startup infrastructure for paravirtualization"
• Next by Date: Re: c 's OOP in VFS vs c++'s OOP
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386: always clear bss
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386: always clear bss
• 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]