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

Matt Domsch
2006-08-28T18:46:37Z

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:28:24AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >On 8/28/06, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> >>Totally pointless since we're in 16-bit mode (as is the "incl %esi")...
> >>I guess it's "better" in the sense that if we run out of that we'll
> >>crash due to a segment overrun... maybe (some BIOSes leave us
> >>unknowningly in big real mode...)
> >
> >So leave as is? Loading address into esi and reference as si?
> >Or modify the whole code to use 16 bits?
> >
>
> Probably modifying the whole code to use 16 bits, unless there is a
> specific reason not to (Matt?)

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?

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matt Domsch
Software Architect
Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com