From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1JKuCh-00017y-71 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:37:07 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JKuCf-00017p-KX for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:37:05 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JKuCe-00017c-PO for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:37:05 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKuCe-00017Z-Lz for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:37:04 -0500 Received: from ns39764.ovh.net ([91.121.25.85] helo=nexedi.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JKuCe-0001cT-AX for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:37:04 -0500 Received: from [10.8.0.46] (unknown [10.8.0.46]) by nexedi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647DC3EB26 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:43:17 +0100 (CET) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:36:36 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20080129122733.GA24823@thorin> <87ve5bjz2j.fsf@xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802011236.36583.okuji@enbug.org> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Subject: Re: grub2 resets machine when reading from an xfs filesystem X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:37:05 -0000 On Wednesday 30 January 2008 13:36, Bean wrote: > > Do you have a more generic solution to this? Something that can be > > compared with NESTED_FUNC_ATTR? This is an i386 only bug... > > perhaps define NESTED_FUNC_ADDR2 as __attribute__ ((regparm(1))) ? Is it bad to just change the definition of NESTED_FUNC_ADDR to use regparm(1)? I know that it is not optimal, but does anybody care? Okuji