On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:34PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > [rz: BTW, proposed variant of thread_info patchset is available for review,
> > see ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/people/viro/task_thread_info-mbox...
>
> BTW please fix the comment in the last patch, {get,put}_thread_info()
> didn't come from the m68k tree, so don't blame it for this stuff.
> The thread_info stuff went through a number changes during 2.5.xx and it's
> a leftover from this.
<goes to check history>
My apologies - that junk predates the events I'd been thinking about.
The rest of comments still stands - it was never used since the moment
of introduction...
Speaking of hardirq.h - come on; even argument about check being not
in the same place where the value is defined...
* we compare NR_IRQS and HARDIRQ_BITS
* one of them is defined in irq.h, another - in hardirq.h
* due to current header ordering, comparison works in irq.h and not in
hardirq.h
* if you change that ordering (which is a *big* patchset, even if you
manage to keep it with zero impact on other architectures) so that check
can go in either place, you can always put it into the place where it
would make more sense in new header ordering; it's not going to be make
patch heavier.
IMO for now it's a no-brainer - compile fix that moves comparison to the
place where another side of comparison is defined vs. header ordering
rework... Sorry.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
