Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:01:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:01:43 -0500 Received: from deimos.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.190]:42177 "EHLO deimos.hpl.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:01:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:01:24 -0800 From: David Mosberger Message-Id: <200202120101.g1C11OJZ010115@napali.hpl.hp.com> To: anton@samba.org, davem@redhat.com Subject: Re: thread_info implementation Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zippel@linux-m68k.org In-Reply-To: <20020211.164617.39155905.davem@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:46:17 -0800 (PST) > From: "David S. Miller" > > From: Anton Blanchard > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:50:48 +1100 > > On archs where we use a register to point to current I cant see why we > need this thread_info junk. I'd be happy if we could put it all in the > task struct for non intel. > > I am in fact very happy with the thread_info implementation > on sparc64. > > I was able to blow away all of the assembler offset stuff because now > all the stuff assembly wants to get at is in one structure and it is > trivial to compute the offsets by hand. I hope you don't consider this a good argument to force all the other platforms to throw away their perfectly good low-core code. Like Anton, I do not expect any benefits from thread_info for ia64. In fact, if anything it's going to slow things down. And we don't need it for task coloring either. We can do that perfectly fine with the old setup. Thanks, --david - 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/