[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47964B7B.9000905@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:00:59 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
CC: Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...umbus.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Construct 32 bit boot time page tables in native
format.
Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 10:23 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> Anyhow, I don't feel all that strongly about it so if the opinion of the
>>> early start of day maintainer(s) is strongly in favour of ASM I'll defer
>>> to that.
>>>
>> My opinion is that I want it done properly (PIC and all that jazz) or
>> not at all, and certainly would not want to mix linear and
>> paging-enabled code in the same file. When it comes to assembly code,
>> at least people can *see* that there there be dragons.
>>
>> The plus *and* minus of a C version is that it's easier for people to
>> modify. The plus side of that is that if we really need it, it's a lot
>> cleaner; the minus side is that it may encourage more code to creep into
>> the pre-paging code, which would not be a good thing IMO.
>
> Seems reasonable to me. I'll integrate your asm diff with the other
> changes and give it a whirl.
This version boots into userspace on both PAE and !PAE. You want to
take it from here?
-hpa
View attachment "diff" of type "text/plain" (14704 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists