From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753125Ab1AZLo1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:44:27 -0500 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 ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:44:25 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=KoTlXhyWWUYYN5/hQHCzNkd3VGleACPRo2CDf3G5gb5DVZKYRF4QLLdDtAOZ2WcFOM 16ZV86PdCnVoKhV7hGTWvH2hJzjY3KTpVG1VM7bWHCA0zjM9MLNZADkKW+bsaz3Za795 KapNaQCAL/tD+TDeJqmPWEQ1C0aMybirxrfxY= Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:44:15 +0200 From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , X86-ML , Tony Luck , Dave Jones , Andrew Morton , Randy Dunlap , Willy Tarreau , Willy Tarreau , Dirk Hohndel , Dirk.Hohndel@intel.com, IDE-ML , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker , Borislav Petkov , Arjan van de Ven , Tejun Heo , James Bottomley , Mark Lord , Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2][concept RFC] x86: BIOS-save kernel log to disk upon panic 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D3F095E.9000004@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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