login
Header Space

 
 

Re: RE : Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Etienne Lorrain <etienne_lorrain@...>
Cc: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
Date: Friday, July 13, 2007 - 5:19 pm

Etienne Lorrain wrote:

Well, the code we have now has worked for quite some years as-is.  This
code is not an algorithmic change.  I haven't seen any machines which
need outb(0xff, 0x64) -- I wonder if that has the same effect as our
io_delay() or if it is actually potent.  I shall look into it.


Are you talking about BP or DS?  As I said, the BP is well-known, and
the code accounts for it in the form of the INT10 macro.


Not with an %fs: prefix.  It would also allow the compiler to do a move
into a register "on its own", which would be disastrous, since it would
lack the prefix.  So "m" is correct.

	-hpa
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, Etienne Lorrain, (Fri Jul 13, 10:25 am)
Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, Chuck Ebbert, (Fri Jul 13, 12:35 pm)
Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Jul 13, 6:23 pm)
Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, Etienne Lorrain, (Mon Jul 16, 9:31 am)
Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, H. Peter Anvin, (Mon Jul 16, 1:35 pm)
Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Jul 13, 12:51 pm)
RE : Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, Etienne Lorrain, (Fri Jul 13, 4:10 pm)
Re: RE : Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Jul 13, 7:09 pm)
Re: RE : Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Jul 13, 5:19 pm)
RE : Re: RE : Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, Etienne Lorrain, (Mon Jul 16, 5:02 am)
Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised, Etienne Lorrain, (Mon Jul 16, 6:21 am)
speck-geostationary