lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix i486 boot failure due to stale %ds
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's SDM Vol3, and the
>> section "switching to protected mode" specifies that
>> a move to %cr0 that sets PE should immediately be
>> followed by a far jmp or call.
>
> Yes, that's what the spec says. I queried this a few months ago, but
> hpa used his convincing voice and said that in practice it isn't
> necessary; there are no known cpus which need this, and any that do
> would cause other things to break. But I guess now we have the
> counter-example...

Joy. Apparently the Intel documentation is actually self-inconsistent.
Section 9.9.1, page 9-17 does indeed have the "far jump or call"
injunction, whereas the sample code in section 9.10.1, page 9-27, line
180 does a near jump!

-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-11-05 00:57    [W:0.045 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site