From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:05:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:32935 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20023738AbXIRSFX (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:05:23 +0100 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8II5Mg4019329; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:05:22 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l8II5M7m019328; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:05:22 +0100 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:05:21 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/process.c: R3000 setup for kernel_thread() Message-ID: <20070918180521.GA16191@linux-mips.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 16549 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:49:08PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > Match the R4000 semantics for the initial state of interrupt/kernel > status register flags for the R3000 in kernel_thread(). > > Signed-off-by: Maciej W. Rozycki > --- > The R4000 variation preserves the interrupt/kernel status flags; the > R3000 assumes a certain state. It may not matter, at least at the current > state of the code, but for consistency I think the R3000 variation should > do the same as the R4000 one, first for purity and second because there is > less maintenance force available for the R3000 and any discrepancy between > the two variations means a greater chance for subtle bugs. The > performance hit is negligible. Since it doesn't seem to bite I queued this for 2.6.24. Thanks, Ralf