From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 06:31:07 +0000
Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] switch_stack position
Message-Id: <marc-linux-ia64-105590678205833@msgid-missing>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <marc-linux-ia64-105590678205821@msgid-missing>
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-ia64-105590678205821@msgid-missing>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:21:49 -0800, 
David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Sure, kdb should do it's job right, but kdb is certainly no reason to
>to hack the context switch code.  Not for something that 99.9% of the
>users never even know existed.

One pointer in struct thread, one pointer in switch_stack, ~ 15
instructions (2-3 extra bundles) to set the pointers during
save_switch_stack, load_switch_stack and copy_thread.  Is that too big
a change?