Re: MINSTATE_START_SAVE_MIN_PHYS looking very confused

From: David Mosberger <davidm_at_napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 2005-05-09 23:34:38
>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:15:48 -0500 (CDT), Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com> said:

  Russ> 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?

  Russ> I don't know the historical reason for the user/kernel
  Russ> differences in the code.  Maybe concerns about saving the
  Russ> right state information depending on the context?

I don't know the history there either.  At least in today's
environment with per-CPU INIT stacks, the code makes little sense,
though.

Keith, are your MCA cleanups close to being ready for prime-time?

	--david
-
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 Mon May 9 09:34:57 2005

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