Re: [RFC] [PATCH] C exceptions in kernel

[Richard Gooch]

Jes Sorensen writes:
> Keith Owens <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> > So you have arch dependent code which has to be done for all
> > architectures before any driver can use it and the code has to be kept
> > up to date by each arch maintainer.  Tell me again why the existing
> > mechanisms are not working and why we need exceptions?  IOW, what
> > existing problem justifies all the extra arch work and maintenance?
> 
> Sorry, can't tell you why as I agree wholeheartedly with you. My
> point was that even if it was possible to implement exceptions 'for
> free' on all architectures, then it's still not what we want in the
> kernel. It's just too gross and makes people think about the code
> the wrong way.

This seems worthy of a new FAQ entry: http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s15-5
And while I was at it, I moved a bunch of these religious questions
into their own section. Section 1 is a bit of a hodge-podge.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: [e-mail]
Current:   [e-mail]