Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 May 2005 08:37:59 -0700 | From | randy_dunlap <> | Subject | Re: more thread_info patches |
| |
On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:35:04 +0200 (CEST) Roman Zippel wrote:
| Hi, | | On Mon, 30 May 2005, randy_dunlap wrote: | | > | Index: linux-2.6-mm/include/linux/sched.h | > | =================================================================== | > | --- linux-2.6-mm.orig/include/linux/sched.h 2005-05-31 01:19:01.636591190 +0200 | > | +++ linux-2.6-mm/include/linux/sched.h 2005-05-31 01:19:05.913856451 +0200 | > | @@ -617,6 +617,7 @@ struct mempolicy; | > | struct task_struct { | > | volatile long state; /* -1 unrunnable, 0 runnable, >0 stopped */ | > | struct thread_info *thread_info; | > | + void *stack; | > | > Any reason this is void * instead of being more strongly typed? | > Does the actual type vary? | | Yes, on m68k it actually doesn't point to the thread_info at all. | The point of these patches are to allow archs to put the thread_info | structure somewhere else. Archs with a thread register can keep | task_struct and thread_info together and directly accessable via the | thread register. Only because i386 has no usable thread register, doesn't | mean everyone else has to suffer.
I see, thanks for the explanation.
| > And a general comments about the 4 emails: | > they all have the same subject. :( | | I know and I did this intentionally, as these patches were not intended to | be applied, they are based on Al's patches and even these aren't in -mm | yet. I maybe should have added a [RFC].
I agree.
Thanks, --- ~Randy - 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/
| |