On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 10:15 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 07:37 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 July 2007 00:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> > > time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> > > to solicit feedback about it.
> >
> > Well you know my position on this. I think it's a bad idea because
> > it means we can never get rid of any old junk. IMNSHO arch/x86_64
> > is significantly cleaner and simpler in many ways than arch/i386 and I would
> > like to preserve that. Also in general arch/x86_64 is much easier to hack
> > than arch/i386 because it's easier to regression test and in general
> > has to care about much less junk. And I don't
> > know of any way to ever fix that for i386 besides splitting the old
> > stuff off completely.
>
> I disagree of course.
>
> I worked on both trees quite intensive over the last years and I broke
> x86_64 more than once when hacking on i386 and vice versa.
Me too.
At the very least I'd like to see asm-x86/ for headers used by both.
That said, the merge is exactly as I'd have done it. So if this were a
democracy, I'd vote in favour.
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
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]
