|| ||Andi Kleen <ak-AT-suse.de>|
|| ||Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>|
|| ||Re: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86|
|| ||Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:37:58 +0200|
|| ||LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-infradead.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw-AT-sous-sol.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>|
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.
Besides radical file movements like this are bad anyways. They cause
a big break in patchkits and forward/backwards porting that doesn't
really help anybody.
> This causes double maintenance
> even for functionality that is conceptually the same for the 32-bit and
> the 64-bit tree. (such as support for standard PC platform architecture
It's not really the same platform: one is PC hardware going back forever
with zillions of bugs, the other is modern PC platforms which much less
bugs and quirks
To see it otherwise it's more a junkification of arch/x86_64 than
a cleanup of arch/i386 -- in fact you didn't really clean up arch/i386
> How did we do it?
> As an initial matter, we made it painstakingly sure that the resulting
> .o files in a 32-bit build are bit for bit equal.
You got not a single line less code duplication then, so i don't really
see the point of this.
to post comments)