On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 23:51 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:52:46PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that Linux uses "#size-cells" and "#address-cells" (see
> > drivers/of/base.c and arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_parse.c)
>
> We use "#size-cells" and "#addres
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 20:11 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Please feel free to integrate the PowerPC part of my patch into your
> > patch, as it indeed needs to be committed at once.
>
> Ok. I'm attaching the complete patch.
Fine with me.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
__
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:30:19PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> Oh, I didn't realize that kern/powerpc/ieee1275/cmain.c is actually used
> by the i386-ieee1275 build. That's misleading! Perhaps it should be
> moved to kern/ieee1275/
Yes. I had this in mind, but I think it's better to wait un
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 13:17 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:54:33AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >Here's an incomplete (missing powerpc & sparc) version of the patch that
> > >would sanitize this function call.
> >
> >
On Jan 17, 2008 8:21 PM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 04:15:23PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> >
> > You need to add NESTED_FUNC_ATTR to nested callback function that use
> > local variable. here is the patch:
>
> Glad to see you found the reason!
>
> But I don't get it
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 04:15:23PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>
> You need to add NESTED_FUNC_ATTR to nested callback function that use
> local variable. here is the patch:
Glad to see you found the reason!
But I don't get it. I see that:
#define NESTED_FUNC_ATTR __attribute__ ((__regparm__ (2)))
so
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:54:33AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Here's an incomplete (missing powerpc & sparc) version of the patch that
> >would sanitize this function call.
>
> I don't see why it needs to be done across the board. Maybe you have
On Jan 17, 2008 7:05 AM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I got pretty confused at this one. Maybe someone can sort this out. I'm
> afraid I can't :-(
>
> It seems that at some point when loading multiboot2 images, our stack is
> corrupted for no apparent reason and one of the hooks i
