On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > i agree that we should do this in one go and in Linus' tree. I suspect > > David has a script for this, so we can do it anytime for any tree, > > right? > > > > the amount of code that truly relies on regs being present is very low. > > Mostly only sysrq type of stuff and the timer interrupt is such. > > Yeah, well, it's been discussed before, and the real problem is not the > patch itself, it's the damn drivers maintained outside the tree, and > people who want to maintain the same driver for multiple different > versions of the kernel. > > Things like the kernel graphics direct-rendering code, for example - > mostly maintained in X.org trees that then want to compile with other > kernels too. > > I don't personally mind the patch, I just wanted to bring that issue up. yup. Perhaps we could add #define IRQ_HANDLERS_DONT_USE_PTREGS so that out-of-tree drivers can reliably do their ifdefing. > So far, when this has come up, the gains it gives have not been worth the > pain. I don't quite see why FRV is so broken that it would matter 20% > worth, and I suspect that number was somehow really not real, but more a > matter of "this small code snippet that is part of the irq delivery and > isn't really measurable improves by 20%", which is a different thing. > > That said, it's almost certainly worth it, and I don't think anybody > really objects deep down. > > So if the patch works against my current tree, and nobody objects, I can > certainly apply it. > > So speak up, people... > Whimper. Later in the week, please. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
