On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:11:03 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

quoted text
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Note that the zero-based percpu problems are completely unrelated
> > to stackprotector. I was able to hit them with a
> > stackprotector-disabled gcc-4.2.3 environment.
> 
> The only reason we need to keep a zero-based pda is to support 
> stack-protector.  If we drop drop it, we can drop the pda - and its 
> special zero-based properties - entirely.

what's wrong with zero based btw?

do they stop us from using gcc's __thread keyword for per cpu variables
or something? (*that* would be a nice feature)

or does it stop us from putting the per cpu variables starting from
offset 4096 onwards?

-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
unsubscribe notice
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/