From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1JKuZn-000591-II for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:00:59 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JKuZk-00058A-Hz for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:00:56 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JKuZi-00057y-7o for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:00:55 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKuZi-00057v-14 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:00:54 -0500 Received: from smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.29]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JKuZh-0005Aj-HM for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:00:53 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (249-174.surfsnel.dsl.internl.net [145.99.174.249]) by smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m11C0ngU094448 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:00:49 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mgerards@xs4all.nl) From: Marco Gerards To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <20080129122733.GA24823@thorin> <87ve5bjz2j.fsf@xs4all.nl> <200802011236.36583.okuji@enbug.org> <20080201114811.GA1126@thorin> Mail-Copies-To: mgerards@xs4all.nl Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:02:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20080201114811.GA1126@thorin> (Robert Millan's message of "Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:48:11 +0100") Message-ID: <873ascga09.fsf@xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 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 12:00:56 -0000 Robert Millan writes: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:36:36PM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: >> 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? > > I don't.. And fine for me :-) -- Marco