Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:46:08 -0400 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: RFC: i386: kill !4KSTACKS |
| |
Jan Kiszka wrote: > 2005/9/6, Giridhar Pemmasani <giri@lmc.cs.sunysb.edu>: > >>Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >> >>>The only way I see is to switch stacks back on ndiswrapper API entry. >>>But managing all those stacks correctly is challenging, as you will >>>likely not want to create a new stack on each switching point. Rather, >> >>This is what I had in mind before I saw this thread here. I, in fact, did >>some work along those lines, but it is even more complicated than you >>mentioned here: Windows uses different calling conventions (STDCALL, >>FASTCALL, CDECL) so switching stacks by copying arguments/results gets >>complicated. So I gave up on that approach. For X86-64 drivers we use >>similar approach, but for that there is only one calling convention and we >>don't need to switch stacks, but reshuffle arguments on stack / in >>registers. >> >>I am still hoping that Andi's approach is possible (I don't understand how >>we can make kernel see current info from private stack). >> > > > The more I think about this the more it becomes clear that this path > will be too winding, especially when compared to the effort needed to > patch 8K (or more) back into the kernel as an intermediate workaround.
Is there a technical reason ("hard to implement" is a practical reason) why all stacks need to be the same size?
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/
| |