Re: Interesting scheduling times

Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:52:47 -0700 (PDT)


On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> As to the AT_FPUCW patch, I don't see the point in saving a
> constant value in the ELF headers. Linux initializes the FPU for
> each process at "exevce()" time, and glibc might as well depend on
> that instead of trying to do so itself.
>
> Ulrich refused to accept that argument, saying "What if Linus
> changes that someday?"

Ok, let's do something that all parties can live with:
- the the AT_FPUCW entry doesn't exist, Ulrich defaults to the state that
has been cleared with "fninit" (apply applicable "normal default value"
for all architectures)
- if the AT_FPUCW entry exists, Ulrich can use that instead.

Ulrich has to do something like the above anyway, as no current kernel
will have the AT_FPUCW entry.

And that allows me to just ignore the issue, because as long as I just let
the FPU be initialized to the default value I won't need to add code that
is unnecessary. Everybody is happy - because I refuse to add bloat for
something that isn't an issue.

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/