On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 22:20 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > I disagree for the oops case. You want the simplest possible code > here.
I would have to agree with Andi. Being conservative here is probably a good thing to avoid nasties like oops recursion. No sense in polishing the brass....;) We already know the ship is sinking due to an earlier error (which is the more important error anyway). I would go so far as to say the other arches should probably follow suit as well. Or am I missing something? Regards, -Greg
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
