Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>Patches look clean enough, apart from this:
>
>
>
>>+#define C(i) per_cpu(cpu_gdt_table, cpu)[GDT_ENTRY_TLS_MIN + i] = t->tls_array[i]
>>+ C(0); C(1); C(2);
>>+#undef C
>>
>>
>
>which is foul ... but you moved it, not wrote it ;-)
>
>But ... not sure doing this bottom up is going to be the easiest way
>to do it? If we want to make clean abstractions, would seem easier to
>work downwards from what areas we need to change. Maybe that's just me.
>
>
You have a point. But my current thinking is, let's worry about
abstractions later and get the silly mechanical stuff out of the way up
front. My patches are mostly free of abstractions, as I said, I left
higher level paradigms out on purpose so we can converge on the
mechanics first - I think the mechanics will converge quite rapidly.
BTW, I know that is ugly. That's why I wrote this:
+static inline void load_TLS(struct thread_struct *t, unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ unsigned first = 0;
+ unsigned last = 0;
+ unsigned i;
+ for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
+ unsigned cur = i + GDT_ENTRY_TLS_MIN;
+ if (per_cpu(cpu_gdt_table, cpu)[cur].a !=
t->tls_array[i].a ||
+ per_cpu(cpu_gdt_table, cpu)[cur].b !=
t->tls_array[i].b) {
+ per_cpu(cpu_gdt_table, cpu)[cur] = t->tls_array[i];
+ last = cur;
+ if (!first)
+ first = cur;
+ }
+ }
+ if (first != 0) {
+ vmi_UpdateGDT(first, last);
+ }
+}
+
But again, lets worry about abstractions later! It would be wonderful
if we could both compile the same base tree before really getting into it.
Zach
