All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>,
	torvalds@transmeta.com, davidm@hpl.hp.com,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>,
	anton@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move task_struct allocation to arch
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:48:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C6C2283.AC588246@linux-m68k.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <12214.1013706194@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>

Hi,

David Howells wrote:

> Ask Linus, he asked for the task_struct/thread_info split. Various people have
> complained about the two things being allocated separately (maintainers for
> m68k and ia64 archs certainly, and if I remember rightly, x86_64 as well,
> though I don't appear to have saved the message for that). However, DaveM
> (sparc64) appears to really be in favour of it.

Ok, so we have the following allocation possibilities.
1. allocate task_struct+thread_info+stack together.
2. allocate task_struct and thread_info+stack.
3. allocate task_struct+thread_info and stack.

1. is what we have so far and I hope Linus actually means a
task_struct/stack split. Linus, could you please clarify?
Architectures without a thread register want either the first or second
option. I don't really have an opinion, whether the first option should
be made obsolete. For architectures with a thread register the third
option makes most sense and is not really a problem, we only have to
specify the dependency between task_struct and thread_info.

bye, Roman

  reply	other threads:[~2002-02-14 20:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-02-14 15:26 [PATCH] move task_struct allocation to arch David Howells
2002-02-14 16:13 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-14 16:32   ` David Howells
2002-02-14 16:46     ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-14 17:03       ` David Howells
2002-02-14 20:48         ` Roman Zippel [this message]
2002-02-14 23:53         ` Richard Henderson
2002-02-15  9:56         ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-15 10:01           ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-15 11:25           ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 11:37             ` David Howells
2002-02-15 12:20               ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 12:56                 ` David Howells
2002-02-15 13:49                   ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 13:51                     ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-15 14:22                       ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 14:07                     ` David Howells
2002-02-15 14:28                       ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 21:56                       ` Richard Henderson
2002-02-15 21:52                   ` Richard Henderson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3C6C2283.AC588246@linux-m68k.org \
    --to=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=davem@redhat.com \
    --cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.