David Howells wrote:
> > Is this the first in a multi-step patch series, or something like that?
>
> What makes you ask that?
Because your patch just flat out duplicates code line for line into two
arches.
> > 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?
I am wondering where you want to go with this, short term and long
term. Is the implementation of this on other arches gonna look the same
-- just line for line copy of code? With maybe ia64 as the lone
exception?
Jeff
-- Jeff Garzik | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal Building 1024 | through an internally-buttered weasel." MandrakeSoft | - goats.com - 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 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:01:03 EST