From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: Per-cpu patches on top of PDA stuff... Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:54:14 +1000 Message-ID: <1158828854.3627.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1158635617.21726.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060920160905.GA47657@muc.de> <1158768906.9633.63.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <200609201822.13488.ak@muc.de> <1158770537.9633.82.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <20060920174927.GA56061@muc.de> <1158775832.9633.115.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1158775832.9633.115.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , virtualization@lists.osdl.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 14:10 -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 19:49 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Because it makes it easier to write other code? We don't really > > want any unnecessary limiting assumptions in arch/i386 just because > > of some obscure machine with one user. > = > Really? I don't see it that way. I did a lot of work back in 2000/2001 > to break x86 of its remapped CPU assumptions ... it's been operating > nicely for 6 years, I don't see a reason to break it now. I agree with James, it's just that I can't test it. I'll send you my patch set when I'm done, please test... Thanks! Rusty. -- = Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law