On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:58:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why?
> >
> > Why do you need to free some more
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:58:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why?
Why do you need to free some more
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:58:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why?
> >
> > Why do you need to free some more
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why?
>
> Why do you need to free some more room between startup_32 and
> startup_64? Do you need this room in another
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:01:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
> >
> > And you're moving this down because
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:01:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And you're moving this down
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why?
Why do you need to free some more room between startup_32 and
startup_64? Do you need this room in
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:58:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why?
Why do you need to free some more
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:01:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
>
> And you're moving this down because of the couple of bytes the next
> patch is adding? If so, then explain
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:01:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And you're moving this down because of the couple of bytes the next
patch is adding? If so, then
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:01:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And you're moving this down because of the couple of bytes the next
patch is adding? If so, then explain that here.
> According to hpa, we can not change startup_64 to
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:01:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
And you're moving this down because of the couple of bytes the next
patch is adding? If so, then explain that here.
According to hpa, we can not change startup_64 to
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
According to hpa, we can not change startup_64 to other offset and
that become ABI now.
We could move function verify_cpu and no_longmode down, because one is
used via call and another will not return.
So could avoid extra code of
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64.
According to hpa, we can not change startup_64 to other offset and
that become ABI now.
We could move function verify_cpu and no_longmode down, because one is
used via call and another will not return.
So could avoid extra code of
14 matches
Mail list logo