From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g39HaQ8d027815 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:36:26 -0700 Received: (from mail@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g39HaQBi027814 for linux-mips-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:36:26 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: mail set sender to owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from av.mvista.com (gateway-1237.mvista.com [12.44.186.158]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g39HaN8d027810 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:36:23 -0700 Received: from mvista.com (av [127.0.0.1]) by av.mvista.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20052; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:46:25 -0700 Message-ID: <3CB32694.1010503@mvista.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:36:20 -0700 From: Jun Sun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011126 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: Ralf Baechle , linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [patch] linux: New style IRQs for DECstation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk 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