Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:26:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:26:03 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:8200 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:26:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:29:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alan Cox cc: Banai Zoltan , Alexander Viro , Thomas Molina , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.5.30 In-Reply-To: <1028290998.18309.9.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 977 Lines: 31 On 2 Aug 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > The PnPBIOS gdt setup changes I did are wrong somewhere. Alan, in your PnP patches you seem to have changed the "set_limit()" to a "_set_limit()" which looks wrong (or at least doesn't look consistent with the notion of just doing the same code as before, except on all CPU's). It _looks_ to me like the QX_SET_SET() macros should be have the "_" removed from the set_limit part. As it is, _set_limit() gets the address calculations wrong (because you don't cast it to "char *") and also gets the limit wrong (because you no longer do the page size adjustment). Does it work with that small change? I have no idea about the pnpbios code, I'm just looking at Alan's diff. Linus - 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/