From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2][concept RFC] x86: BIOS-save kernel log to disk
	upon panic
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:44:15 +0200
Message-ID: <20110126114415.GB24527@laptop>
References: <20110125134748.GA10051@laptop> <20110125140948.GA26762@elte.hu> <20110125150834.GD27510@htj.dyndns.org> <4D3F095E.9000004@zytor.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:55573 "EHLO
	mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752720Ab1AZLoZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:44:25 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D3F095E.9000004@zytor.com>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, X86-ML <x86@kernel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>, Willy Tarreau <wtarreau@hera.kernel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@infradead.org>, Dirk.Hohndel@intel.com, IDE-ML <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>, Mark Lord <kernel@teksavvy.com>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:33:18AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 07:08 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> >> All in one, a very intriguing idea IMO, and the hardest bits
> >> (lowlevel x86 transition) is all implemented already.
> 
> Lowlevel x86 transition is not at all the hardest part.  It's
> detail-oriented but well defined (and, I might add, incompletely
> implemented -- 64 bits only, not using facilities we already have);
>

Making the transition code applicable to 32-bit CPUs will hopefully be
quite simple: it's mostly a subset of the posted parts.

Since I might use that transition code for a different purpose now, any
facilities not properly used beside the identity mappings?

thanks,

-- 
Darwish
http://darwish.07.googlepages.com