Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 18:45:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 18:45:35 -0500 Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:36589 "EHLO vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 18:45:17 -0500 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:45:08 -0700 Message-Id: <200202242345.g1ONj8m29970@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: Jes Sorensen Cc: Keith Owens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] C exceptions in kernel In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <927.1014507655@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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: 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/