Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)

H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-28T20:33:27Z

Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 12:00:37PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Matt Domsch wrote:
>>> No reason. I was just trying to be careful, not leaving data in the
>>> upper bits of those registers going uninitialized. If we know they're
>>> not being used ever, then it's not a problem. But I don't think
>>> that's the source of the command line size concern, is it?
>>>
>> No, it's treating the command line as a fixed buffer, as opposed to a
>> null-terminated string. This was always a bug, by the way.
>
> OK, I'll look at fixing that, and using %esi throughout.
>

NAK on that. "Using %esi throughout" is a red herring, and just will
produce worse code for no gain.

-hpa