From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 13:34:38 +0000 Subject: Re: MINSTATE_START_SAVE_MIN_PHYS looking very confused Message-Id: <17023.26350.53037.896158@napali.hpl.hp.com> List-Id: References: <17019.24133.738017.806202@napali.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <17019.24133.738017.806202@napali.hpl.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:15:48 -0500 (CDT), Russ Anderson 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