public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox