david at gibson.dropbear.id.au
Thu Jan 9 13:33:00 EST 2003
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 06:11:25PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 17:49, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 09:48:48AM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > It's simply a wrapper around successive pte/pmd/pgd_offset calls, with
> > > some error checking. Are you saying those calls are not the correct way
> > > to get the PTE pointer for an address?
> > Trouble is that this will break badly in 2.5 where we use large-page
> > entries for the lowmem mapping.
> I'm happy to change it to something 2.5-friendly if someone can suggest
> Alternatively I can add 405LP to the XMON/KGDB/BDI2000 list of ifdefs
> that map the whole kernel writable, which would be overkill but avoid
> adding PTE manipulations.
Hmm... what's the reason that wakeup_info needs to be reserved in
head_4xx.S, rather than just being a normal variable in the data area
(which should be writable anyway)? Its not obvious to me from the
Actually, skimming through the patch I noticed a minor nit: you only
have one .long in head_4xx.S reserving space for the wakeup_info
struct which is 3 words long. In practice the . = in the exception
handlers will give you plenty of space, but I think it would be good
form to explicitly reserve the right amount of space.
David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a
david at gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev