On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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 ... ,-)
>...
When grep'ing whether a patch I send might break something, it's quite
handy to see what belongs to which architecture.
Perhaps some day someone might want to put some ACPI code under
arch/ia64 and let i386 and x86_64 use it from there...
What about some kind of arch/i386-x86_64-shared/ that contains the
shared code?
The fact that x86_64 defines CONFIG_X86 while i386 doesn't define
CONFIG_X86_64 unambiguously defines an ordering, and if we really need
this sharing, there's no good reason to make the chaos bigger than it is
already with unidirectional sharing.
> -Andi
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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]
