On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 09:23 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > > I don't know any other arch well enough to be sure that TIF_32BIT isn't the > > wrong test there too. I'd like to leave that worry to the arch maintainers. > > Agreed - it may be that others will want to not use TIF_32BIT too. It > really does make much more sense to have it as a thread-local status flag > than as an atomic (and thus expensive to modify) thread-flag, not just on > x86. FYI. _TIF_32BIT is the right test on powerpc (it's also what entry_64.S tests to pick the appropriate syscall table). Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
