linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH]: Remove CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 entirely

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Remove CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 entirely
From: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:20:52 -0400
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ths@networkno.de, ralf@linux-mips.org, Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <20070329.002453.18311528.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <46086A90.7070402@gentoo.org> <20070327.235310.128618679.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <460A6CED.1070308@gentoo.org> <20070329.002453.18311528.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (Windows/20070116)
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:26:05 -0400, Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
Well, what's the need to use the move/lui/ld sequence over move/lui/daddui/dsll/daddui/dsll//ld anyways? I'll have to warm the Indy up and try a 64bit kernel there I guess, to see if it exhibits similar issues with this segment of code.

Just an optimization.  For CKSEG0 symbol, a LUI instruction can fill
high 32-bit by sign-extention.  Either code should work for CKSEG0
kernel.

Well, thinking about it some more, can this stackframe change be segmented out of Frank's main patches, so we can get them into git, and spend time in 2.6.21/2.6.22/2.6.23 chasing down what exactly is up with this specific asm sequence?

Of course, wiring in a quick check on !defined(CONFIG_SGI_IP32) would also work, but that's not proper to go kludging in specific machine checks in a generic file like stackframe, IMHO.


--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>