Re: MINSTATE_START_SAVE_MIN_PHYS looking very confused

From: Russ Anderson <>
Date: 2005-05-07 02:15:48
David Mosberger wrote:
>          However, the bigger issue to me is: given that we have a
> separate INIT stack, why bother distinguishing between an INIT that
> hits user-level vs. one that hits the kernel.  It's not possible to
> handle nested INITs anyhow, so why not just simplify that code to
> always switch to the INIT stack?

I don't know the historical reason for the user/kernel differences
in the code.  Maybe concerns about saving the right state information
depending on the context?  You're right that it could be made to 
treat both the same.

Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead  
SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Fri May 6 12:16:29 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:38 EST