Take your fights with me offline. You have my email address.
Jeff
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> Um? Huh? This seems like mumbo-jumbo to me. With the exception of those
> parts of the kernel that actually manipulate the hardware as hardware, --
> which is a surprisingly small part of the kernel, even of the parts of the
> kernel that look like what they do is manipulate the hardware as hardware --
> code executing in a kernel behaves exactly like code executing in any other
> part of the system. - It is, in fact, often not possible to tell outside the
> processor control registers, whether the executing code is running in 'priv'
> mode or not, so the same code will show the same bus trace in or out of the
> kernel.
>
> In fact, if the underlying hardware architecture has an appropriate
> separation between memory addressability and memory accessability mechanisms
> within address translation, and a reasonable i/o architecture, only a very
> tiny fraction of 'the kernel' needs to execute with any different privileges
> than any other application. (I got it down to page table entry management
> and trap/interrupt entry and exit in one kernel, but that was on a *very*
> nice hardware architecture.)
>
> Marty (who *has* used logic analysers to debug new CPU designs and other OS
> problems.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff V. Merkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 11:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: J . A . Magallon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Criticism] On the discussion about C++ modules
>
> Not meant to offend, but it's obvious you are not grasping hardware
> optimization issues relative to kernel development and performance. I
> would recommend getting your hands on a bus analyzer, and testing out
> some of your theories, and explore for yourself relative to these issues
> with some hard numbers.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
