On 5/26/06, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "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.
I agree that just moving the code does not help. But my code actually loads a new set of gdts and idts and I'm hoping that it will improve the robustness. Regarding more comments I totally agree with you. > >> 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. But I need to store my page tables somewhere, and there is no good place to store them now. With good reasoning I can be convinced that storing things on the control page is a good thing, and I'd like to agree on something, but without good reasoning I will continue to think that the control page solution is overly complex. Thanks, / magnus _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
