|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||Jeff Garzik <jeff-AT-garzik.org>|
|| ||Re: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86|
|| ||Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT)|
|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak-AT-suse.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-infradead.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw-AT-sous-sol.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>|
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jeff Garzik <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some arch/i386
> > > stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
> > we can leave those few items in arch/x86 just as much. No need to keep
> > around a legacy tree for that.
> By extension it makes doing that sort of thing, in general, more difficult.
> Which is IMO not desirable.
I think it's *much* harder to carry legacy things around in an old tree
that almost nobody even uses any more (probably not true yet, but for most
of the main developers, I bet it will be true in a year). Especially one
that just duplicates 99% of the stuff.
There really isn't that much legacy crud. There are things like random
quirks, but every time I hear the (theoretical) argument about how much
time and effort we save by having it duplicated somewhere else, I think
about all the time we definitely waste by fixing the same bug twice (and
worry about the cases where we don't).
to post comments)