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.
Cheers,
Jes
-
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 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:53 EST