[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] C exceptions in kernel
Jes Sorensen writes:
> Keith Owens <> 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:
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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean