>>> Stas Sergeev <[email protected]> 11.09.05 16:02:24 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>> mainline, but I just now came across this, and following all of the
>> original discussion that I was able to locate I didn't see any
mention
>> of a potential different approach to solving the problem which, as
it
>There were at least 3 fundamentally different
>approaches proposed by different people, I implemented
>and posted all of them. At least 2 approaches were
>publically discussed. Both did what you say. The
>one that didn't, wasn't publically discussed either
>(the one that ended up in 2.6.12, in fact).
>So it is a bit odd that you weren't able to find
>the code that does what you say. :)
>
>> would appear to me, requires much less code changes: Instead of
>> allocating a separate stack to set intermediately, the 16-bit stack
>> segment could be mapped directly onto the normal, flat kernel
stack,
>Do you mean, eg, this?
>http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.2/1533.html
No, I don't. This talks about going through ring 1 intermediately,
which isn't what I have in mind.
>Relevant quote:
>---
>> ring1 stacks must be per-CPU.
>I allocate it on a ring0 stack. Noone seem to
>suggest that. Is this flawed for some reasons?
>---
Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |