lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [Criticism] On the discussion about C++ modules
Date
Which part of "what you wrote doesn't make sense, (for the following
reasons,) please explain it" are you having trouble responding to in public?

This has nothing to do with some imagined 'fight' and everything to do with
a public challenge to a publicly made statement that, IMHO, gives every
appearance of being nonsense.

But I do agree that discussions of C++ belong off list.

Marty


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:jmerkey@timpanogas.org]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 12:44 AM
To: Marty Fouts
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Criticism] On the discussion about C++ modules


Take your fights with me offline. You have my email address.

Jeff

Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> Um? Huh? This seems like mumbo-jumbo to me. With the exception of those
> parts of the kernel that actually manipulate the hardware as hardware, --
> which is a surprisingly small part of the kernel, even of the parts of the
> kernel that look like what they do is manipulate the hardware as hardware
--
> code executing in a kernel behaves exactly like code executing in any
other
> part of the system. - It is, in fact, often not possible to tell outside
the
> processor control registers, whether the executing code is running in
'priv'
> mode or not, so the same code will show the same bus trace in or out of
the
> kernel.
>
> In fact, if the underlying hardware architecture has an appropriate
> separation between memory addressability and memory accessability
mechanisms
> within address translation, and a reasonable i/o architecture, only a
very
> tiny fraction of 'the kernel' needs to execute with any different
privileges
> than any other application. (I got it down to page table entry management
> and trap/interrupt entry and exit in one kernel, but that was on a *very*
> nice hardware architecture.)
>
> Marty (who *has* used logic analysers to debug new CPU designs and other
OS
> problems.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:jmerkey@timpanogas.org]
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 11:20 PM
> To: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
> Cc: J . A . Magallon; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [Criticism] On the discussion about C++ modules
>
> Not meant to offend, but it's obvious you are not grasping hardware
> optimization issues relative to kernel development and performance. I
> would recommend getting your hands on a bus analyzer, and testing out
> some of your theories, and explore for yourself relative to these issues
> with some hard numbers.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.032 / U:33.420 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site