Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Sam Varshavchik" <> | Subject | Re: Recursive deadlock on die_lock | Date | Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:55:20 GMT |
| |
Keith Owens writes:
> On 14 Oct 2001 17:14:24 -0600, > ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: >>Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> writes: >>> IA64 also has PAL code which is >>> called directly by the kernel, that PAL code has no unwind data so >>> failures in PAL code result in bad or incomplete back traces. >> >>PAL Ahh!!!!! >> >>Please tell me that we are not rely on the firmware to be correct >>after we have finished initializing the operating system. >> >>Please tell me it ain't so. I have nightmares about that kind of setup. > > Not only do we rely on it, it is mandated by the IA64 design. Intel > IA64 System Abstraction Layer, 24535901.pdf. The IA64 kernel calls SAL > all over the place. grep -ir '\<[ps]al' include/asm-ia64/ arch/ia64/
Oh, goody! What an excellent way to shove CPRM or SSSCA down your throat! The possibilities are endless...
-- Sam
- 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/
|  |