On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:41:59PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 07/02/2012 11:33 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >> Last I saw I saw a patch to that effect, asked what the benefit > >> was, and got no answer. > > Are you positive about that? I don't recall you replying any of > > the times I sent out the patch and my mail archive isn't > > contradicting me either. > I said last time I saw a patch to that effect; it might not have been > from you. I might not have seen yours for whatever reason (including > losing it on my end.) I'm kind of surprised anyone else has been sending stuff (unless mine got resent by someone else, I did include it in some of my serises for the clock API); I know I've posted mine several times now. In any case, I hope the mail you're replying to answers your question about why it's useful. In general I'd probably go further and say that (at least when a generic implementation is available) there should be a very good reason for not enabling an API on an architecture rather than the other way around.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
