> The same is true of a lot of the APIC timer code. Sure, that patch has the > actual conversion in it, and you don't have the cross-architecture issues, > but more than 50% of the patch seems to be just cleanup that is > independent of the actual switch-over, no? I don't think it's that much cleanup. One of my goals for x86-64 was always to have it support modern x86 only; this means in particularly most of the old bug workaround removed. With the APIC timer merging a lot of that crap gets back in. I would prefer to keep APIC code separate. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- References:
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 45/61] sysfs: fix root sysfs_dirent -> root dentry association
- Next by Date: [PATCH 46/61] sysfs: move s_active functions to fs/sysfs/dir.c
- Previous by thread: Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Next by thread: Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Index(es):
![]() |