Hi Rusty, On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:58:30 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 10:51 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 03:31 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > >> Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > -/* > > >> > - * The boot_gdt_table must mirror the equivalent in setup.S and is > > >> > - * used only for booting. > > >> > - */ > > >> > > >> It looks like you are killing a useful comment here for no good reason. > > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > > > I think one has to look harder, then. There is no "equivalent in > > > setup.S": there is no setup.S, and it's certainly not clear what GDT > > > this "must mirror": it doesn't mirror any GDT at the moment. > > > > see the gdt in: > > arch/i386/boot/setup.S > > Erk, what a dumb mistake. Apologies for my snarky comment above 8( > > > If anything the comment should read these values are fixed by the boot > > protocol and we can't change them. > > Since lguest doesn't use setup.S, it's outside my experience. I'll just > leave the comment, and try to pretend this never happened 8) > > Thanks muchly, > Rusty. > == > Now we are no longer dynamically allocating the GDT, we don't need the > "cpu_gdt_table" at all: we can switch straight from "boot_gdt_table" > to the per-cpu GDT. This means initializing the cpu_gdt array in C. Why not take on the opportunity to rename boot_gt_table to boot_gtd, to avoid the duplicate T(able)? Sébastien. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
