Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 10:23 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> Anyhow, I don't feel all that strongly about it so if the opinion of the
>>> early start of day maintainer(s) is strongly in favour of ASM I'll defer
>>> to that.
>>>
>> My opinion is that I want it done properly (PIC and all that jazz) or 
>> not at all, and certainly would not want to mix linear and 
>> paging-enabled code in the same file.  When it comes to assembly code, 
>> at least people can *see* that there there be dragons.
>>
>> The plus *and* minus of a C version is that it's easier for people to 
>> modify.  The plus side of that is that if we really need it, it's a lot 
>> cleaner; the minus side is that it may encourage more code to creep into 
>> the pre-paging code, which would not be a good thing IMO.
> 
> Seems reasonable to me. I'll integrate your asm diff with the other
> changes and give it a whirl.

This version boots into userspace on both PAE and !PAE.  You want to 
take it from here?

	-hpa