Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S after 0x200

2012-11-23 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > >> Quite certain something depends on it. > > It would not surprise me at all that there is a dependency, if we have > not had a better way to report the 64bit entry point. I just wanted to > make the context

Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S after 0x200

2012-11-22 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Yinghai Lu writes: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> The comment is just plain wrong. It assumes you're loading an ELF file, >> whereas in practice that is rarely true. >> >> This does explain why the poor ABI, though. A jump table at the >> beginning would have been

Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S after 0x200

2012-11-22 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"H. Peter Anvin" writes: > Quite certain something depends on it. It would not surprise me at all that there is a dependency, if we have not had a better way to report the 64bit entry point. I just wanted to make the context clear as that was confused in the discussion. Note that having a 32bi

Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S after 0x200

2012-11-21 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > The comment is just plain wrong. It assumes you're loading an ELF file, > whereas in practice that is rarely true. > > This does explain why the poor ABI, though. A jump table at the > beginning would have been a lot cleaner. Can you ple

Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S after 0x200

2012-11-21 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 11/21/2012 11:45 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 11/20/2012 11:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> >>> We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64. >>> >>> And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ? >> >> >> Here y

Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S after 0x200

2012-11-21 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 11/20/2012 11:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> >> We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64. >> >> And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ? > > > Here you are saying "I don't understand how this works."

Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S after 0x200

2012-11-21 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 11/20/2012 11:15 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64. And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ? Here you are saying "I don't understand how this works." It is YOUR responsibility to find out and write a definite statement r

[PATCH v3 01/12] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S after 0x200

2012-11-20 Thread Yinghai Lu
We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64. And we can not change startup_64 to other value --- ABI ? We could move function verify_cpu down, and that could avoid extra code of jmp back and forth. Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu Cc: Matt Fleming --- arch/x86/boot/compressed/hea