http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10927
------- Comment #30 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-18 01:33 -------
> Something that does come to mind is if it at all possible we're not actually
> in
> real mode when this code is entered?
Hmm, that would be bad and against the spec. Not sure if that's
possible. Anything else than CS:0 would be against the spec, too,
IIRC.
Now... what is different from the "old" code... the old code did not
need a stack in real mode at all (if it did not need to call video
bios etc) -- so if you commented out pushl 0; popfl, it went back to
protected mode without using stack at all. (And yes, some strange
machines needed that).
I'm not sure what is going on here; one crazy explanation would be
"%rsp has high bits set"...
Hmm, can we get away with staying on whatever stack is provided to us
by BIOS?
Pavel
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
acpi-bugzilla mailing list
acpi-bugzilla@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-bugzilla
