Jes Sorensen writes:
> Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> writes:
>
> > So you have arch dependent code which has to be done for all
> > architectures before any driver can use it and the code has to be kept
> > up to date by each arch maintainer. Tell me again why the existing
> > mechanisms are not working and why we need exceptions? IOW, what
> > existing problem justifies all the extra arch work and maintenance?
>
> Sorry, can't tell you why as I agree wholeheartedly with you. My
> point was that even if it was possible to implement exceptions 'for
> free' on all architectures, then it's still not what we want in the
> kernel. It's just too gross and makes people think about the code
> the wrong way.
This seems worthy of a new FAQ entry: http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s15-5
And while I was at it, I moved a bunch of these religious questions
into their own section. Section 1 is a bit of a hodge-podge.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 21:00:12 EST