From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1424052AbWKIP27 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:28:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1424054AbWKIP27 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:28:59 -0500 Received: from justus.rz.uni-saarland.de ([134.96.7.31]:11689 "EHLO justus.rz.uni-saarland.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424052AbWKIP25 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:28:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:44:36 +0100 From: Alexander van Heukelum To: Steven Rostedt Cc: LKML , sct@redhat.com, ak@suse.de, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] shorten the x86_64 boot setup GDT to what the comment says Message-ID: <20061109154436.GA31954@mailshack.com> References: <1163084072.31014.275411753@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.5.1 (justus.rz.uni-saarland.de [134.96.7.31]); Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:28:53 +0100 (CET) X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter (version: 1.1.3-1; AVE: 7.2.0.39; VDF: 6.36.1.10; host: AntiVir1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 10:18:53AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Hmm, Andi, > > Should this be more like what is done in x86? Although this isn't a major > bug or anything, would it be cleaner. For example doing: > > @@ -836,11 +836,15 @@ gdt: > .word 0x9200 # data read/write > .word 0x00CF # granularity = 4096, 386 > # (+5th nibble of limit) > +gdt_end: > + .align 4 > + > + .word 0 # alignment byte > idt_48: > .word 0 # idt limit = 0 > .word 0, 0 # idt base = 0L > gdt_48: > - .word 0x8000 # gdt limit=2048, > + .word gdt_end - gdt - 1 # gdt limit=2048, > # 256 GDT entries > > .word 0, 0 # gdt base (filled in > > instead? Hi! Maybe you should consider 16-byte aligning the gdt table too, like i386 does? It doesn't hurt, and as per the comment in the i386-file "16 byte aligment is recommended by intel." Greetings, Alexander van Heukelum > If so, I can send you another patch that does this. Will need to test it > first. > > -- Steve