"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
>>> though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
>>
>> That would require a new compiler, right? I don't think that would
>> make
WANG Cong wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:27:47PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Thanks! I will take a look at that file.
>
> Maybe we can rewrite them in C, use a 16-bit C compiler to generate AT asm
> code and finally push the asm code in the kernel source tree. But perhaps
> there is
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
>> though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
>
> That would require a new compiler, right? I don't think that would
> make users very happy.
>
> Besides the code is not exactly
>
> A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
> though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
That would require a new compiler, right? I don't think that would
make users very happy.
Besides the code is not exactly that maintenance intensive
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:27:47PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
>>> though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
>>
>> Is
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:27:47PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
Is this using the
A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
That would require a new compiler, right? I don't think that would
make users very happy.
Besides the code is not exactly that maintenance intensive and
WANG Cong wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:27:47PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Thanks! I will take a look at that file.
Maybe we can rewrite them in C, use a 16-bit C compiler to generate ATT asm
code and finally push the asm code in the kernel source tree. But perhaps
there is no
Andi Kleen wrote:
A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
That would require a new compiler, right? I don't think that would
make users very happy.
Besides the code is not exactly that
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andi Kleen wrote:
A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
That would require a new compiler, right? I don't think that would
make users very happy.
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
>> though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
>
> Is this using the .code16gcc? Or are you thinking of some other
>
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
> though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
Is this using the .code16gcc? Or are you thinking of some other
technique. Requiring another C compiler to
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thanks for your point.
>> I know little about virtualization, maybe can't help much. But I am
>> interested
>> in other things you mentioned. AFAIK, segments can't be avoided on i386, and
>> Linux uses them very little, how
WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thanks for your point.
> I know little about virtualization, maybe can't help much. But I am interested
> in other things you mentioned. AFAIK, segments can't be avoided on i386, and
> Linux uses them very little, how are they recalculated constantly?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:12:43PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>WANG Cong wrote:
>>>
>>> I have considered myself as a rather unofficial maintainer of this code,
>>> and wouldn't mind make it official now when I actually have a job which
>>> both cares about and actually can support my upstream
WANG Cong wrote:
>>
>> I have considered myself as a rather unofficial maintainer of this code,
>> and wouldn't mind make it official now when I actually have a job which
>> both cares about and actually can support my upstream Linux activities,
>> which was a major pain for a while.
>>
>>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:13:01PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Michael McConnell wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I noticed the MAINTAINERS file still lists Riley Williams as the
>> maintainer of the i386 boot code, presumably as no-one else has taken it
>> up in his absence (though, I'm sure it's
Michael McConnell wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I noticed the MAINTAINERS file still lists Riley Williams as the
> maintainer of the i386 boot code, presumably as no-one else has taken it
> up in his absence (though, I'm sure it's probably been touched since
> late 2004).
>
> If I knew the first thing
Hi folks,
I noticed the MAINTAINERS file still lists Riley Williams as the
maintainer of the i386 boot code, presumably as no-one else has taken it
up in his absence (though, I'm sure it's probably been touched since
late 2004).
If I knew the first thing about the i386 boot process I would
Hi folks,
I noticed the MAINTAINERS file still lists Riley Williams as the
maintainer of the i386 boot code, presumably as no-one else has taken it
up in his absence (though, I'm sure it's probably been touched since
late 2004).
If I knew the first thing about the i386 boot process I would
Michael McConnell wrote:
Hi folks,
I noticed the MAINTAINERS file still lists Riley Williams as the
maintainer of the i386 boot code, presumably as no-one else has taken it
up in his absence (though, I'm sure it's probably been touched since
late 2004).
If I knew the first thing about
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:13:01PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Michael McConnell wrote:
Hi folks,
I noticed the MAINTAINERS file still lists Riley Williams as the
maintainer of the i386 boot code, presumably as no-one else has taken it
up in his absence (though, I'm sure it's probably been
WANG Cong wrote:
I have considered myself as a rather unofficial maintainer of this code,
and wouldn't mind make it official now when I actually have a job which
both cares about and actually can support my upstream Linux activities,
which was a major pain for a while.
Overall, there is a
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:12:43PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
WANG Cong wrote:
I have considered myself as a rather unofficial maintainer of this code,
and wouldn't mind make it official now when I actually have a job which
both cares about and actually can support my upstream Linux
WANG Cong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for your point.
I know little about virtualization, maybe can't help much. But I am interested
in other things you mentioned. AFAIK, segments can't be avoided on i386, and
Linux uses them very little, how are they recalculated constantly?
Look in
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
WANG Cong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for your point.
I know little about virtualization, maybe can't help much. But I am
interested
in other things you mentioned. AFAIK, segments can't be avoided on i386, and
Linux uses them very little, how are they
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
Is this using the .code16gcc? Or are you thinking of some other
technique. Requiring another C compiler to build
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
Is this using the .code16gcc? Or are you thinking of some other
technique.
28 matches
Mail list logo
