On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 06:34:54PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > I shortly considered redoing the boot process, but then it looked > > too risky to me. > > > > e.g. I guess on x86-64 it wouldn't be that difficult, just a bit of work, > > but on i386 with all the weird hardware it could be quite destabilizing. > > But doing it on x86-64 only is not a good solution. > > Well, architectures which support CPU hotplug have had to fix their boot > process anyway, and most are fairly trivial.
The problem is not doing the work, but testing it. > > If you had done it properly in 2.5 it would be working and tested > > by now ;-) , but doing it in the middle of 2.6 would seem a bit misplaced > > to me. > > Linus would not have taken the patch, because it would have broken too > much. Cleaning up the x86 boot sequence is a project in itself, which > needs to be done, but not by me 8) I think my patch is better. It at least keeps all the baggage out of the normal run paths. Doing this check at each timer interrupt doesn't make much sense. -Andi - 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/
