On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:02:16AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Andrew Morton akpm@osdl.org writes:
Please don't top-post.
On 1/2/06, Vivek Goyal vgoyal@in.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Andi,
Can you please include the following patch. This patch has already been
pushed
by Andrew.
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.15-rc5/2.6.15...
IIRC, I dropped this patch because of discouraging noises from Andi and because underlying x86_64 changes broke it in ugly ways.
Ok. I just as extensively as I could and I can't find the under laying x86_64 changes that Andi mentioned he was working on. I have looked in current -mm and in Andi merge and experimental quilt trees. It could be that I'm blind but I looked and I did not see them.
Even in the discussion where this was mentioned there never was a semantic conflict. But rather two patches passing so close they touched the same or neighboring lines of code.
It needs to be redone and Andi's objections (whatever they were) need to be addressed or argued about.
The difference was one of approach. Andi wanted us to treat the apics as black boxes and save and restore register values with no regard as to what the registers did. This is theoretically more future proof, but it looses flexibility.
Well I still think it would be better to do it in the generic way, but i'm not feeling very strongly about it anymore.
to change the destination cpu, in the kexec on panic case. This is something that cannot be done if we simply saved off the registers.
Right now the patch is rather dead.
Current the referred to patch applies just fine, to 2.6.15, and except for a conflict with the above mentioned patch which applies fine to 2.6.15-mm1 as well.
It conflicts with the x86-64 timer routing rewrite I did, but that's currently on hold because it has some other issues. I can merge them later, no problem.
-Andi