Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:46:37 -0500 | From | Matt Domsch <> | Subject | Re: [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 <hpa@zytor.com> 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?
Thanks, Matt
-- Matt Domsch Software Architect Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |