| To: | Dominic Sweetman <dom@algor.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Why is byteorder removed from /proc/cpuinfo? |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:06:46 -0200 |
| Cc: | "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <15381.384.341974.133229@gladsmuir.algor.co.uk>; from dom@algor.co.uk on Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 06:40:00PM +0000 |
| References: | <20011206093506.A6496@lucon.org> <20011206155724.A11083@dea.linux-mips.net> <15381.384.341974.133229@gladsmuir.algor.co.uk> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 06:40:00PM +0000, Dominic Sweetman wrote: > Dynamic endianness on a per-thread basis would require fantasy > hardware which operates differently from the way MIPS chips do... I used the term thread as the c0_status register which contains the RE bit is per process. Keeping it a per mm thing would require more effort for no good reason. Anyway, inside the Linux kernel threads and processes are basically the same thing. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Static register access from outside scall_o32.S, Grant Taylor |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] sgiwd93.c fix for multiple disks, Florian Lohoff |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Why is byteorder removed from /proc/cpuinfo?, Dominic Sweetman |
| Next by Thread: | 2.4.16 kernel for algor p6032, Zhang Fuxin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |