On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 04:44:06PM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 01:35:50AM +0100, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> 
>  > I meant it to be port dependent, so the addition to sh3 was a mistake.
>  > Although it can probably be shared between various ports with the
>  > same CPU eventually.
> 
> Eventually?  Sounds like a hard-requirement.  Now LKMs for procfs
> for the same MACHINE_ARCH are not compatible.

If an LKM contains port-specific information that can't be avoided
of course. procfs currently has no port specific information
(not in default mode, which will probably never have that, nor
in linux mode).

I wanted to keep the option open to have it include port-specific data.
I can't forsee how likely it is that this will happen.

I don't care much either way. If it is felt that cpu-specific data
is enough (which is certainly the case for now), then that's fine
with me.

- Frank