Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, david parsons wrote:
> >
> > Nathan Zook and I have been working on and off on making the e820 memory
> > detection patch work a little better for a while, and we seem to have
> > ground to a stop. So what I'd like to do is get the kernel-side of the
> > patch (plus some of the reworked linux-side code) into the kernel, so
> > that the reports of e820 gumming up on zero-length memory segments or
> > memory segments in video memory can be dealt with, and so that a larger
> > audience can have it running on their machines to shake out any boundary
> > conditions.
>
> I hate all these 16-bit assembly code modifications.
>
> Why do I care whether ds/es changes during the e820 call? And why should
> the 16-bit asm code care?
It's just a matter of being paranoid. My feelings were more along
the lines of ``who cares??'' but Nathan has been pretty compelling
with his arguments than the ACPI spec is broken enough so that
things might change without our noticing. It's not too difficult
to remove most of the paranoia checking -- I'll do that and pass
around an assembly-side patch that doesn't do any more checking than
it used to.
> - do the old-style calls regardless
The e801 call is broken on some new bioses -- I've got some Pentium II
boxes where e801 cheerfully returns 550mb on a machine that only has
128mb of core.
> Oh, and btw - the C code you _do_ have is mis-indented.
____
david parsons \bi/ But it's a lot of work to reindent code.
\/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:16 EST