On 7/20/07, Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> I really like the idea of a unified source tree for the 2 x86 variants.
> The technical differences are really small (of course there are
> differences, especially in the boot sequence), and striving to unify as
> much as possible while having a clean way to do per 32/64 bit parts as
> well is something that imo is the right thing.
>
Not to mention all the paravirt stuff that's going on. Having a single
x86 arch to work with would be greatly beneficial to the work being done
to port paravirt to x86_64.
As for paravirt, it'd really help. As I had the tree lagged behind by
so much, a great part of the work now is checking where i386 is,
seeing if it applies for 64-bit, and so on. The differences are not so
huge, and I'm trying my best to not let them deviate too much. It
could mostly be built incrementally.
And I bet a huge part of the tree could be like this too: In most
places, they are different for no particular reason, just because two
people implemented it separately. There'd be a huge effort to bring
those differences into an end, but I think I'd pay in future
development speed. (not to mention the duplicate bugs linus have
already talked about)
Way to go, Thomas and Ingo!
I am pretty much for it too.
--
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
-
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]
