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/
