On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" writes:
>
>> Quite certain something depends on it.
>
> It would not surprise me at all that there is a dependency, if we have
> not had a better way to report the 64bit entry point. I just wanted to
> make the context
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Eric W. Biederman
ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com writes:
Quite certain something depends on it.
It would not surprise me at all that there is a dependency, if we have
not had a better way to report the 64bit entry point. I just
Yinghai Lu writes:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> The comment is just plain wrong. It assumes you're loading an ELF file,
>> whereas in practice that is rarely true.
>>
>> This does explain why the poor ABI, though. A jump table at the
>> beginning would have
"H. Peter Anvin" writes:
> Quite certain something depends on it.
It would not surprise me at all that there is a dependency, if we have
not had a better way to report the 64bit entry point. I just wanted to
make the context clear as that was confused in the discussion.
Note that having a
H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com writes:
Quite certain something depends on it.
It would not surprise me at all that there is a dependency, if we have
not had a better way to report the 64bit entry point. I just wanted to
make the context clear as that was confused in the discussion.
Note that
Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org writes:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
The comment is just plain wrong. It assumes you're loading an ELF file,
whereas in practice that is rarely true.
This does explain why the poor ABI, though. A jump table at the
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> The comment is just plain wrong. It assumes you're loading an ELF file,
> whereas in practice that is rarely true.
>
> This does explain why the poor ABI, though. A jump table at the
> beginning would have been a lot cleaner.
Can you
On 11/21/2012 11:45 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 11/20/2012 11:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
>>>
>>> And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ?
>>
>>
>> Here
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 11:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
>>
>> And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ?
>
>
> Here you are saying "I don't understand how this works."
On 11/20/2012 11:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ?
Here you are saying "I don't understand how this works." It is YOUR
responsibility to find out and write a definite statement
On 11/20/2012 11:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ?
Here you are saying I don't understand how this works. It is YOUR
responsibility to find out and write a definite statement
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 11/20/2012 11:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ?
Here you are saying I don't understand how this works.
On 11/21/2012 11:45 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 11/20/2012 11:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ?
Here you are
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
The comment is just plain wrong. It assumes you're loading an ELF file,
whereas in practice that is rarely true.
This does explain why the poor ABI, though. A jump table at the
beginning would have been a lot cleaner.
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ?
We could move function verify_cpu down, and that could avoid extra
code of jmp back and forth.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu
Cc: Matt Fleming
---
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ?
We could move function verify_cpu down, and that could avoid extra
code of jmp back and forth.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org
Cc: Matt Fleming
16 matches
Mail list logo
