Hi Eric, On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 20:56 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Magnus Damm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 18:56 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > >> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 01:40:31PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > >> > kexec: Avoid overwriting the current pgd (V2) > >> > > >> > This patch updates the kexec code for i386 and x86_64 to avoid > >> > overwriting > >> > the current pgd. For most people is overwriting the current pgd is not a > >> > big > >> > problem. When kexec:ing into a new kernel that reinitializes and makes > >> > use > > of > >> > all memory we don't care about saving state. > >> > > >> > But overwriting the current pgd is not a good solution in the case of > >> > kdump > >> > (CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP) where we want to preserve as much state as possible > >> > when > >> > a crash occurs. This patch solves the overwriting issue. > >> > > >> > 20060524: V2 > >> > > >> > - Broke out architecture-specific data structures into asm/kexec.h > >> > - Fixed a i386/PAE page table problem only triggering on real hardware. > >> > - Moved segment handling code into the assembly routines. > >> > >> What's the advantage of moving segment handling code into assembly > >> routines? It will only add to the fear of control code page size growing > >> beyond 4K. > > > > I have two main reasons: > > > > - Why wrap assembler instructions in C code if you just can move them > > into an already existing assembly file? Much cleaner IMO. > > C code is much more accessible to other programmers than arch specific > assembly. The code on the control page was almost written in C, and > I'm still not quite convinced that it would be wrong to do that.
I agree with you that it is of course better to implement something in C if possible compared to writing it in architecture-specific assembly. But I do not agree that wrapping architecture-specific assembly code in C functions makes the code more understandable. I'd really like to meet the kernel hacker that is aware of how x86 segmentation works but is unable to read x86 assembly. > > - I'm currently working on making kexec to work under xen/dom0. And by > > moving the segment handling code into the assembly file we reduce the > > amount of duplicated code. > > Not the reason I would have expected. So you are only differring the > two implementations by the contents of the control code page? Nah, there's a fairly large framework to pass pages to the hypervisor, converting pfn:s to mfn:s, building page tables etc. We will resend the patches later on today to xen-devel if you're interested. Thanks, / magnus _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
