|To:||"Maciej W. Rozycki" <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||Re: [patch] linux: New style IRQs for DECstation|
|From:||Jun Sun <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:36:20 -0700|
|Cc:||Ralf Baechle <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011126 Netscape6/6.2.1|
Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
I can't see a reason why to handle this option in system-specific code.
How about "there will be likely no such CPUs/systems in the future"?Your patch will force every new CPU to add FPUEX option to the cpu_option, where apparently no place really need to use it.
Leaving FPU exception enabled for a CPU that does not generate FPU exception is acceptable. (because it does *not* generate FPU exceptions). And hooking up/dispatching the FPU exception interrupt is system-specific already anyway.
It, however, makes sense to provide a common wrapper code for fpu interrupt to jump to fpu exception handling code.
Over-abstraction can make the picture cloudy rather than clear. My 2 cents. Jun
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [patch] linux: New style IRQs for DECstation, Maciej W. Rozycki|
|Next by Date:||Question about r4k_clear_page_xxx(), Rani Assaf|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [patch] linux: New style IRQs for DECstation, Maciej W. Rozycki|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [patch] linux: New style IRQs for DECstation, Maciej W. Rozycki|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|