Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Unlikely. Unless we expect that this offset will come in non-zero. > You might have to worry about that. Historically, the "zero-page" was really just the setup code overwritten, and it's still true for a big chunk of it. One of the major changes in my setup code rewrite is to start out with an all-zero chunk of memory for this. -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: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- References:
- [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] i386: always clear bss
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Replace paravirt_probe with "platform type" boot header field
- Index(es):
 |