Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:33:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:33:23 -0500 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:8695 "HELO executor.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:33:06 -0500 To: Jeff Garzik Cc: David Howells , torvalds@transmeta.com, davidm@hpl.hp.com, "David S. Miller" , anton@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zippel@linux-m68k.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] move task_struct allocation to arch In-Reply-To: Message from Jeff Garzik of "Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:13:21 EST." <3C6BE221.7F824863@mandrakesoft.com> User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.1 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:32:59 +0000 Message-ID: <12086.1013704379@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> From: David Howells Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Is this the first in a multi-step patch series, or something like that? What makes you ask that? > You just duplicated code in a generic location and pasted it into the > arch. Where's the gain in that? I do see the gain in letting the arch > allocate the task struct, but surely your patch should provide a generic > mechanism for an arch to call by default, instead of duplicating code?? Hmmm... Is it worth going through all fun of creating another CONFIG_xxxx option to govern the inclusion of such code? David - 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/