From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1EZCa2-0000F6-Uc for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:22:58 -0800 Received: from smtp001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.32]) by mail.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1EZCa0-0004Zp-9g for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:22:58 -0800 From: Blaisorblade Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 8/10] UML - Maintain own LDT entries References: <200510310439.j9V4dfbw000872@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <200511022051.24335.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <436F469B.3080607@fujitsu-siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <436F469B.3080607@fujitsu-siemens.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200511072028.23111.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 20:28:22 +0100 To: Bodo Stroesser Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jeff Dike , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Allan Graves On Monday 07 November 2005 13:20, Bodo Stroesser wrote: > Blaisorblade wrote: > > On Monday 31 October 2005 05:39, Jeff Dike wrote: > >>From: Bodo Stroesser > > Or at least so I think (I must still give a proper look afterwards, and > > I'll post patches). Actually it seems that this is done on purpose, but I > > don't agree too much on this. I will see. > From the beginning my new code for SKAS included the checks/buffering you > later inserted for TT and SKAS. So this patch is a second version adapted > to your changes. It shifts your improvements into TT path only (where I > didn't do any changes in my old patch), while it uses my own stuff for > SKAS. Thus the patch doesn't really revert your improvements, but restricts > it to TT. As in SKAS0 UML now holds its own LDT data, there is no need for > buffering in this case. So I think it makes sense to have separate code for > SKAS. Yep, ok - I'm undecided about the new code for SKAS3, but it may make sense (i.e. no opinion). Instead, I have another question: is there a proper reason for using the processor format for storing the info and translating it back to (struct user_desc)? I am planning to avoid this double translation because I don't like it. Any opinion? -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!". Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894) http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel