On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:36:23 +0200 Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:32:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:14:22 +0200 Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > People do not expect code under arch/i386/ to be used by code under
> > > arch/x86_64/ and vice versa.
> >
> > [OT: it drives me batshit that we ended up including stuff in both directions]
>
> Why?
It's more complex, obviously. More surprising. It used to be the case that
arch/x86^4 files were xx86_64 and arch/i386 files were i386 and possibly
x86_64. Now it's the case that arch/x86_64 files are x86_64 and maybe i386
and arch/i386 files are i386 and maybe x86_64. Additional and quite
unnecessary complexity.
I mean, how often do x86_64 changes in your tree break i386? Once every
3ish weeks would be my guess. Often this will be because the person making
(and reviewing) the x86_64 change didn't know (or forgot) that the file is
also used by x86_64.
> Anyways, i wouldn't have a problem with putting the already shared
> files into a different directory or move it over to one of the architectures,
> although I must admit I personally wouldn't see a big benefit from it. But if
> it gives people a warm fuzzy feeling I'm all for it.
Doing something like that would reduce complexity, reduce surprise and
increase maintainability. That's more than warm-and-fuzzies.
-
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]
