Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> This patch set replaces the x86 setup code, which is currently all in
> assembly, with a version written in C, using the ".code16gcc" feature
> of binutils (which has been present since at least 2001.)
>
>  76 files changed, 4606 insertions(+), 5209 deletions(-)

I can't really argue against this on any sane grounds - not only is it 
removing more lines than it adds, but moving from mostly unreadable 
assembly to C seems a good idea.

How does this impact the size of that code? Do we even care?

But as to how to integrate it, I'm not sure I really want to just merge 
it. I suspect we would want to have it in some public tree that people 
actually test at least to some degree first, and the -mm tree seems to 
make most sense.

I didn't see anything objectionable in the series, although I do think the 
explanations need to be re-done for a number of them. You seem to have 
violated the "a single line to explain the patch at the top" rule, and as 
a result they make no sense for some of them (the explanation for patch 
05/33 doesn't parse for me and 07/33 seems to have the single-line 
problem)

So let's just get this merged. But the question is, do we put it in 
2.6.23-rc1, or do we put it in -mm for a few weeks, which would imply 
waiting for the next merge window? Andrew?

			Linus
-
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/