![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>>> Stas Sergeev <stsp@aknet.ru> 11.09.05 16:02:24 >>>>Jan Beulich wrote:>> mainline, but I just now came across this, and following all of the >> original discussion that I was able to locate I didn't see any mention >> of a potential different approach to solving the problem which, as it >There were at least 3 fundamentally different>approaches proposed by different people, I implemented >and posted all of them. At least 2 approaches were>publically discussed. Both did what you say. The>one that didn't, wasn't publically discussed either >(the one that ended up in 2.6.12, in fact).>So it is a bit odd that you weren't able to find>the code that does what you say. :)>>> would appear to me, requires much less code changes: Instead of >> allocating a separate stack to set intermediately, the 16-bit stack >> segment could be mapped directly onto the normal, flat kernel stack, >Do you mean, eg, this?>http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.2/1533.html No, I don't. This talks about going through ring 1 intermediately, which isn't what I have in mind. >Relevant quote:>--->> ring1 stacks must be per-CPU.>I allocate it on a ring0 stack. Noone seem to>suggest that. Is this flawed for some reasons?>--- Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-12 09:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||