Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751178AbVIGRkE (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:40:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751214AbVIGRkD (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:40:03 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:28421 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751206AbVIGRkB (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:40:01 -0400 Message-ID: <431F2760.5060904@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:46:08 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050729 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jan.kiszka@googlemail.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: i386: kill !4KSTACKS References: <20050904145129.53730.qmail@web50202.mail.yahoo.com> <1125854398.23858.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <58d0dbf10509061005358dce91@mail.gmail.com> <58d0dbf105090612421dcd9d8d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <58d0dbf105090612421dcd9d8d@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1721 Lines: 40 Jan Kiszka wrote: > 2005/9/6, Giridhar Pemmasani : > >>Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >> >>>The only way I see is to switch stacks back on ndiswrapper API entry. >>>But managing all those stacks correctly is challenging, as you will >>>likely not want to create a new stack on each switching point. Rather, >> >>This is what I had in mind before I saw this thread here. I, in fact, did >>some work along those lines, but it is even more complicated than you >>mentioned here: Windows uses different calling conventions (STDCALL, >>FASTCALL, CDECL) so switching stacks by copying arguments/results gets >>complicated. So I gave up on that approach. For X86-64 drivers we use >>similar approach, but for that there is only one calling convention and we >>don't need to switch stacks, but reshuffle arguments on stack / in >>registers. >> >>I am still hoping that Andi's approach is possible (I don't understand how >>we can make kernel see current info from private stack). >> > > > The more I think about this the more it becomes clear that this path > will be too winding, especially when compared to the effort needed to > patch 8K (or more) back into the kernel as an intermediate workaround. Is there a technical reason ("hard to implement" is a practical reason) why all stacks need to be the same size? -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/