On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.08.16 at 16:53, wrote:
>>> I'm not sure. I'd like to see the current logic altered as little as
>>> possible, and what you suggest above is more than that minimum.
>>
>> Then, that would be more like the very first patch I posted but
>>> On 26.08.16 at 16:53, wrote:
>> I'm not sure. I'd like to see the current logic altered as little as
>> possible, and what you suggest above is more than that minimum.
>
> Then, that would be more like the very first patch I posted but just
> change the 0x1000 low limit to 0x4000.
I thought
> I'm not sure. I'd like to see the current logic altered as little as
> possible, and what you suggest above is more than that minimum.
Then, that would be more like the very first patch I posted but just
change the 0x1000 low limit to 0x4000.
> So another question: Can you
> detect whether we
>>> On 26.08.16 at 16:21, wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> At the very least we shouldn't overlap with the BDA (starting at
>> 0040: and iirc covering up to 256 bytes, which is why DOS
>> never used any memory below 0050:).
>
> Mmm, I misread the assembly the low limit applied to the multi boot
> va
Hi,
> At the very least we shouldn't overlap with the BDA (starting at
> 0040: and iirc covering up to 256 bytes, which is why DOS
> never used any memory below 0050:).
Mmm, I misread the assembly the low limit applied to the multi boot
value was 0x4000 and not 0x1000 ...
Would this log
>>> On 26.08.16 at 15:10, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.08.16 at 11:09, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S
>>> @@ -108,6 +108,8 @@ __start:
>>> shl $10-4,%edx
>>> cmp %eax,%edx
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.08.16 at 11:09, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S
>> @@ -108,6 +108,8 @@ __start:
>> shl $10-4,%edx
>> cmp %eax,%edx /* compare with BDA value */
>>
>>> On 26.08.16 at 11:09, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S
> @@ -108,6 +108,8 @@ __start:
> shl $10-4,%edx
> cmp %eax,%edx /* compare with BDA value */
> cmovb %edx,%eax /* and use the smaller */
> +
On 26/08/16 10:09, Sylvain Munaut wrote:
If we have an multiboot value and the value we got from the BDA
seems too small, use the safe one
Signed-off-by: Sylvain Munaut
---
I need this when using linux-as-a-bootloader (i.e. kexec into Xen) because
the BDA is just zero at that point (not entirel
If we have an multiboot value and the value we got from the BDA
seems too small, use the safe one
Signed-off-by: Sylvain Munaut
---
I need this when using linux-as-a-bootloader (i.e. kexec into Xen) because
the BDA is just zero at that point (not entirely sure why tbh).
This is the simplest patc
10 matches
Mail list logo
