From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1424059AbWKIPeF (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:34:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1424063AbWKIPeE (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:34:04 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39888 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424059AbWKIPeB (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:34:01 -0500 From: Andi Kleen To: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] shorten the x86_64 boot setup GDT to what the comment says Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 14:31:44 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: "Steven Rostedt" , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, "LKML" References: <200611091413.21415.ak@suse.de> <455357C9.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> In-Reply-To: <455357C9.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611091431.44792.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 09 November 2006 16:31, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Andi Kleen 09.11.06 14:13 >>> > >> > >> Stephen Tweedie has written up a patch to fix the Xen side and will be > >> submitting that to those folks. But that doesn't excuse the GDT limit > >> being a magnitude too big. > > > >Added thanks > > Once at this - why not set it to the *correct* value, just like i386 does, > and update the comment at once? Namely, why would you expect to > never run into the original problem again if there are still possible > selectors pointing into invalid, yet within limits parts of the GDT? Ok I will use an offset. -Andi