Re: MINSTATE_START_SAVE_MIN_PHYS looking very confused

From: Russ Anderson <rja_at_sgi.com>
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          rja@sgi.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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