Re: more thread_info patches

[randy_dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:35:04 +0200 (CEST) Roman Zippel wrote:

| Hi,
| 
| On Mon, 30 May 2005, randy_dunlap wrote:
| 
| > | Index: linux-2.6-mm/include/linux/sched.h
| > | ===================================================================
| > | --- linux-2.6-mm.orig/include/linux/sched.h	2005-05-31 01:19:01.636591190 +0200
| > | +++ linux-2.6-mm/include/linux/sched.h	2005-05-31 01:19:05.913856451 +0200
| > | @@ -617,6 +617,7 @@ struct mempolicy;
| > |  struct task_struct {
| > |  	volatile long state;	/* -1 unrunnable, 0 runnable, >0 stopped */
| > |  	struct thread_info *thread_info;
| > | +	void *stack;
| > 
| > Any reason this is void * instead of being more strongly typed?
| > Does the actual type vary?
| 
| Yes, on m68k it actually doesn't point to the thread_info at all.
| The point of these patches are to allow archs to put the thread_info 
| structure somewhere else. Archs with a thread register can keep 
| task_struct and thread_info together and directly accessable via the 
| thread register. Only because i386 has no usable thread register, doesn't 
| mean everyone else has to suffer.

I see, thanks for the explanation.

| > And a general comments about the 4 emails:
| > they all have the same subject.  :(
| 
| I know and I did this intentionally, as these patches were not intended to 
| be applied, they are based on Al's patches and even these aren't in -mm 
| yet. I maybe should have added a [RFC].

I agree.

Thanks,
---
~Randy