[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Inclusion of x86_64 memorize ioapic at bootup patch
    On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:02:16AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > Andrew Morton <> writes:
    > >
    > > Please don't top-post.
    > >
    > >>
    > >> On 1/2/06, Vivek Goyal <> wrote:
    > >> > Hi Andi,
    > >> >
    > >> > Can you please include the following patch. This patch has already been
    > > pushed
    > >> > by Andrew.
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >
    > >
    > > IIRC, I dropped this patch because of discouraging noises from Andi and
    > > because underlying x86_64 changes broke it in ugly ways.
    > Ok. I just as extensively as I could and I can't find the under laying
    > x86_64 changes that Andi mentioned he was working on. I have looked
    > in current -mm and in Andi merge and experimental quilt trees. It
    > could be that I'm blind but I looked and I did not see them.
    > Even in the discussion where this was mentioned there never was a
    > semantic conflict. But rather two patches passing so close they
    > touched the same or neighboring lines of code.
    > > It needs to be
    > > redone and Andi's objections (whatever they were) need to be addressed or
    > > argued about.
    > The difference was one of approach. Andi wanted us to treat the apics
    > as black boxes and save and restore register values with no regard as
    > to what the registers did. This is theoretically more future proof,
    > but it looses flexibility.

    Well I still think it would be better to do it in the generic way,
    but i'm not feeling very strongly about it anymore.

    > to change the destination cpu, in the kexec on panic case. This
    > is something that cannot be done if we simply saved off the registers.
    > > Right now the patch is rather dead.
    > Current the referred to patch applies just fine, to 2.6.15,
    > and except for a conflict with the above mentioned patch which
    > applies fine to 2.6.15-mm1 as well.

    It conflicts with the x86-64 timer routing rewrite I did, but that's currently
    on hold because it has some other issues. I can merge them later, no problem.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-01-06 20:03    [W:0.037 / U:4.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site