Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-21 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-21 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-19 Thread Borislav Petkov
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-19 Thread Yinghai Lu
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-19 Thread Borislav Petkov
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-19 Thread Borislav Petkov
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-19 Thread Yinghai Lu
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-19 Thread Borislav Petkov
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-18 Thread Yinghai Lu
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-18 Thread Yinghai Lu
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-15 Thread Borislav Petkov
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

Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-15 Thread Borislav Petkov
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

[PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-13 Thread Yinghai Lu
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

[PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200

2012-12-13 Thread Yinghai Lu
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