Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751328AbWH1Sqh (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:46:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751329AbWH1Sqh (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:46:37 -0400 Received: from ausc60ps301.us.dell.com ([143.166.148.206]:55821 "EHLO ausc60ps301.us.dell.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751328AbWH1Sqg (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:46:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: s=smtpout; d=dell.com; c=nofws; q=dns; b=tpwF/c1mDDqQNOKk0M/iZ1Ntotu7kQdWFS/Xti5DZqCTndXjL308De4HLPM4AK18BOF9DKplckIxzsNyPd7YGw+oasB8x5crzY6MmO5bXgqq6uHx6KAFc6A6SlbGT9c7; X-IronPort-AV: i="4.08,176,1154926800"; d="scan'208"; a="70359577:sNHT2672311239" Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:46:37 -0500 From: Matt Domsch To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Alon Bar-Lev , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johninsd@san.rr.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping) Message-ID: <20060828184637.GD13464@lists.us.dell.com> References: <445B5524.2090001@gmail.com> <200608272116.23498.ak@suse.de> <44F1F356.5030105@zytor.com> <200608272254.13871.ak@suse.de> <44F21122.3030505@zytor.com> <44F286E8.1000100@gmail.com> <44F2902B.5050304@gmail.com> <44F29BCD.3080408@zytor.com> <9e0cf0bf0608280519y7a9afcb9od29494b9cacb8852@mail.gmail.com> <44F335C8.7020108@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44F335C8.7020108@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1286 Lines: 33 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? 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/