[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 19/27] x86, boot: update comments about entries for 64bit image
On 12/13/2012 04:44 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
>> On 12/13/2012 04:13 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> It is definitely the minmum we can rely on, and so is the minimum we should
>> rely on. In fact, we don't even need .bss/.brk to be mapped, but we
>> probably should require that as a matter of protocol.
> in my version of arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S is using BRK to do
> ident/kernel high mapping
> for kernel that is above 4G.
> so .brk is needed.

Yes, with the page fault approach we wouldn't need to do that, so that
version is the minimum that can, practically, be required (one can
constrain that even further, down to only needing a handful of pages,
but that gets progressively more painful for little to no gain.)

However, as I said, rather than tying our hands for the future we should
include .bss/.brk in the requirement.


H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-14 02:41    [W:0.091 / U:2.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site