On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:31:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Doing it either way should be OK with this mce code. But I feel,
> > > despite of the patch size, it is better to keep all the shared
> > > code in i386 tree and link it from x86-64. Otherwise, it may become
> > > kind of messy in future, with various links between i386 and x86-64.
> >
> > i386 already uses code from x86-64 (earlyprintk.c) - it is nothing
> > new.
>
> I must say I don't like the bidirectional sharing either.
Why exactly? X86-64 is not a "slave" of i386, they are equal peers;
free to share from each other, but none better than the other ... ,-)
-Andi (fighting for the rights of the repressed architectures ;-)
>
> But I guess it'll be simple enough to fix up if it causes any real problems
> in the future.
The only complaint I heard so far was from a kernel hacker who deleted
all non i386 architectures in his kernel trees, but I was not
very sympathetic to that one. In fact I think it is better
when people have full trees around so when they change something
globally grep finds really all instances.
-Andi
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
