[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
    On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:28:24AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    > Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
    > >On 8/28/06, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
    > >>Totally pointless since we're in 16-bit mode (as is the "incl %esi")...
    > >>I guess it's "better" in the sense that if we run out of that we'll
    > >>crash due to a segment overrun... maybe (some BIOSes leave us
    > >>unknowningly in big real mode...)
    > >
    > >So leave as is? Loading address into esi and reference as si?
    > >Or modify the whole code to use 16 bits?
    > >
    > Probably modifying the whole code to use 16 bits, unless there is a
    > specific reason not to (Matt?)

    No reason. I was just trying to be careful, not leaving data in the
    upper bits of those registers going uninitialized. If we know they're
    not being used ever, then it's not a problem. But I don't think
    that's the source of the command line size concern, is it?


    Matt Domsch
    Software Architect
    Dell Linux Solutions &
    Linux on Dell mailing lists @
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-28 20:49    [W:0.039 / U:10.436 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site