AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20061207155555.01d2d150@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<larry.scheer@onstor.com>,<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>,<jay.michlin@onstor.com>,<jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>,<tim.gardner@onstor.com>,<brian.stark@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0A9407@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:57:36 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Larry Scheer" <larry.scheer@onstor.com>
Cc: "Maxim Kozlovsky" <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>, "Jay Michlin"
 <jay.michlin@onstor.com>, "Jonathan Goldick" <jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>,
 "Tim Gardner" <tim.gardner@onstor.com>, "Brian Stark"
 <brian.stark@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: Cougar OS Selection pros and cons
Message-ID: <20061207155736.173591ac@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0A9407@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <20061207143925.745e5a76@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0A9407@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.6 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think it's pretty clear that on cougar, and probably bobcat as well,
we will be going mixed: 64 bit kernel and 32 bit userland, at least at
first.  Jonathon has told me that I didn't make that clear enough
in the doc so I will be amending that oversight.  Going 64 bit userland
with our GPP (the processor fomerly known as SSC) code is too big a
chunk to throw in with cougar. But don't get me wrong: I have no problem
beating software engineers about the eyes and ears, and making them
work nights and weekends to clean up their code that assumes type
and pointer sizes and endianness. Bad monkey!

As for the little v. big, for 32 bit mips, little was probably the
better choice.  Back in 2000.  Maybe even now.

Cheers,

a

 On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:55:51 -0800 "Larry Scheer"
<larry.scheer@onstor.com> wrote:

> Perhaps this is the time to start the discussion of 32 .vs 64 for the
> SSC?
> 
> Tim and I were discussing this a couple days ago. If we switch the SSC
> to be 64 bits we have quite a bit of work to do converting all of the
> SSC code. There are many assumption made in the code that a long is 32
> bits. Also there may be many places were structure sizes are assumed
> to be fixed and that will be changing. There are many things to
> consider with the switch to a 64 bit OS.
> 
> If one of the objectives is keeping the cost down and getting things
> running ASAP, then we may want to consider keeping the OS and SSC code
> 32 bit based.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Larry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@onstor.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:39 PM
> To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> Cc: Jay Michlin; Jonathan Goldick; Tim Gardner; Larry Scheer; Brian
> Stark
> Subject: Re: Cougar OS Selection pros and cons
> 
> Ahh, minor detail.  I'm sure we'll think of something.
> 
> I was talking about running all the processors big endian.  Shouldn't
> take you long to fix up all the nfx code that isn't endian neutral,
> right? Couple of minutes? ~:^)
> 
> At one time I had high, bright hopes that we could go big endian.
> There would be some definite advantages to doing so.  That hope has
> faded to about .001 candle power at this point.
> 
> Was that your only comment?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> a
> 
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:24:40 -0800 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
> <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
> 
> > Big endian? This is not going to work very well, txrx and fp run
> > little endian and it is expected that we can just pass the
> > structures around.
