Re: [PATCH] i386: always clear bss

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 
> Yes, that's more or less the same code, aside from using 0x40(%esi) as a
> stack.  Would that be OK here?
> 

I saw the 0x40(%esi) stack stuff, and I'm utterly puzzled by it.  There
is no reason one can't set up %esp to point to a hunk in ordinary memory
and use it?

	-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] i386: always clear bss
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)

• 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: [RFC PATCH 3/3] boot bzImages under paravirt
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
• 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]