Re: [PATCH 7/15] misc: Make x86 doublefault handling optional

[Matt Mackall]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > in the past couple of years i saw double-faults at a rate of perhaps 
> > once a year - and i frequently hack lowlevel glue code! So the 
> > usefulness of this code in the field, and especially on an embedded 
> > platforms, is extremely limited.
> 
> If it only saves an hour or developer time on some bug report
> it has already justified its value.
> 
> Also to really save memory there are much better areas
> of attack than this relatively slim code.

Such as? Odds are good I've already attacked them, but I'd be happy
for some new ideas.

I think anything easily disabled larger than 1k is a pretty decent
target in a minimal config.

> -Andi (who sees double faults more often) 

You will *not* see them on a platform with no console and no printk,
hence CONFIG_EMBEDDED. Can we be done with this yet?

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/