[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 64bit GNU Mach
From: |
Richard Braun |
Subject: |
Re: 64bit GNU Mach |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:34:25 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 02:18:34PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> But then it needs some trick to convert to pointer everywhere needed.
> Trying to manage low-4GiB allocation to avoid the trick would make
> things nasty: remember that x86_64 does not have segmentation any more,
> only flat addressing space, so we'd still need a 4GiB User/Kernel
> separation, which was precisely what I wanted to avoid.
I'm not following there. The conversion to pointer would be a simple
lookup (changing all occurrences in the kernel can be tedious, agreed).
I don't see the relation with segmentation and the 4GiB split. What is
the layout you expect for the kernel space ? First 4 GiB user then
kernel ? And you thought of segmentation to implicitely shift
addresses ? IMHO, changing GNU Mach to cleanly convert port names where
needed remains the sane choice.
--
Richard Braun
- 64bit GNU Mach, Samuel Thibault, 2012/04/01
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Richard Braun, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Samuel Thibault, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Richard Braun, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Samuel Thibault, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Richard Braun, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Samuel Thibault, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach,
Richard Braun <=
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Samuel Thibault, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Richard Braun, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Samuel Thibault, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Richard Braun, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Samuel Thibault, 2012/04/02
- Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Richard Braun, 2012/04/02
Re: 64bit GNU Mach, Roland McGrath, 2012/04/02