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
12 matches
Mail list logo