Re: [GIT PULL] x86 setup: correct booting on 486DX4

[H. Peter Anvin]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure that it needs to be a long-jump, btw. I think any
> > regular branch is sufficient. You obviously *do* need to make the long 
> > jump later (to reload %cs in protected mode), but I'm not sure it's needed 
> > in that place. I forget the exact rules (but they definitely were 
> > documented).
>
> Hmm. The original Linux code did
>
> 	movw    $1, %ax
> 	lmsw    %ax
> 	jmp     flush_instr
>     flush_instr:
>
> and I think that was straigh out of the documentation. So yeah, I think 
> that's the right fix - not a longjmp (which in itself is dangerous: it 
> potentially behaves *differently* on different CPU's, since some CPU's may 
> do the long jump with pre-protected-mode semantics, while others will do 
> it with protected mode already in effect!)

Just looked it up; it was a bit hard to find (it is Intel vol 3 page 
9-27, at least in the version I have), but you're right -- the 
documentation only demands a short jump here, not a long jmp (which 
actually makes sense given what I remembered that a long jump should be 
deferrable here.)  So yes, that is definitely the right fix and avoids 
the ugly mixing of code.

I'll update the patch.

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