On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:55:41 -0800 William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:40:19 -0800 William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:32:21PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > I disagree with Tom's patch in that it puts this huge switch() > > statement inline. The whole point of BTFIXUP_HIGH() is that it > > resolves the call to a single instruction which can be easily > > patched at runtime. > > If it's going to expand to multiple BTFIXUP_HIGH() calls and a > > switch statement, just make it a normal BTFIXUP() to a function > > and place the implementation in sun4c.c and sun4m.c > > I'm on the road and people are antsy for something that builds, so > I'm rather tempted to take it for expedience and properly BTFIXUP-ize > it after 2.6.11, which appears rather imminent, since I basically > won't push anything I've written myself but not tested. No objection to using it as a short-term fix. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
