"Magnus Damm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Also, I feel that my approach with a valid idt and gdt is more robust.
One of my biggest concerns with the current code is that it is not sufficiently robust, in the kdump case. So I am all in favor things that improve that situation. At the same time just moving code from C to assembly doesn't make it more robust, especially when the comments explaining what the code does don't come along. >> The big problem was you did several things with a single patch, >> and that made the review much more difficult than it had to be. >> >> Having to check if you correctly modified the page tables, while also >> having to check for segmentation, and the interrupt descriptor >> transformations was distracting. > > Let me know which parts you think are good and we will implement and > review them bit by bit instead then. Skip the infrastructure changes, and the rest looks like real possibilities. Eric _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
