Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:45:08 -0700 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] C exceptions in kernel |
| |
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/
| |