Re: [tlug] Alan Cox's remark at Fosdem

[ijw@example.com]

> That is what the assembler code should handle. In a modern kernel, if
> it is in C, it should not be tied to any one architecture.
>
> -Josh

(Hello from a recent lurker btw)

That's not really fair.  For instance, x86 architectures have low memory
and high memory, a 2 level VM tree, small and large pages (sometimes);
anything written to support these memory structures is going to be x86
specific.  That doesn't mean that you should be writing it in assembler.

I'm a firm believer that you should stick to C for as long as possible
when doing this sort of thing, providing you're not having to take into
account how the C has been compiled.  So, for instance, it's acceptable to
write in C and call out only to change hardware and processor settings,
but if you're having to consider, for instance, how a structure is laid
out or what the stack frame looks like while you write your C then you
should have changed language.  I suspect this rule is a bit too
nonspecific to hold in every case, but it's better than Josh's
suggestion...

Linux, from the early days, was written to be C with odd exceptions, even
though it was initially 386 only.  I still think this was a good design
philosophy.

-- 
Ian.