From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, andi@firstfloor.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86, fpu: split FPU state from task struct - v3
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:20:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080304082022.GC5689@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080304013649.GB28006@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
* Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
> > Also this weak linkage stuff creaping in is really ugly.
>
> hmm.. any better suggestion?
i dont find it ugly at all - it's far easier to read than an #ifdef
maze. And the fact that it's marked "weak" is enough of a visual warning
IMO that this is just default behavior and that the arch might have
overriden it.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-04 8:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-03 23:02 [patch 1/2] x86, fpu: split FPU state from task struct - v3 Suresh Siddha
2008-03-03 23:02 ` [patch 2/2] x86, fpu: lazy allocation of FPU area " Suresh Siddha
2008-03-04 1:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-03-04 1:43 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-03-04 10:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-04 17:55 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-03-05 19:47 ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-06 15:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-06 19:10 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-03-06 20:24 ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-06 20:52 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-07 12:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-03-07 13:06 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-03-07 13:18 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-07 13:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-03-07 13:27 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-05 19:48 ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-06 19:26 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-03-06 21:21 ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-04 1:18 ` [patch 1/2] x86, fpu: split FPU state from task struct " Christoph Hellwig
2008-03-04 1:36 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-03-04 8:20 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-03-06 12:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-03-04 10:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-04 17:59 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-03-04 20:53 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080304082022.GC5689@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.