On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 11:10 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:10:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > > > On Saturday 07 July 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > > ARM introduced AArch64 as part of the ARMv8 architecture > > > > > > > > With the risk of bikeshedding here, but I find the name awkward. How > > > > about just naming the arch port arm64 instead? It's considerably more > > > > descriptive in the context of the kernel. For reference, we didn't > > > > name ppc64, nor powerpc, after what the IBM/power.org marketing people > > > > were currently calling the architecture at the time either. > > > > > > I agree the name sucks, [...] > > > > So why not change it now, when it only bothers a few dozen > > people and it is only present in 36 patches? Why go full steam > > ahead to annoy thousands of people with it and why spread the > > naming madness to thousands of commits? > > Changing the arch/ dir name is easy at this point. My preference is for > consistency with the official name (that cannot be changed) and the gcc > triplet. I also don't think it annoys thousands of people, most don't > really care. The few reactions I've seen is pretty much because people > were expecting arm64 and it came as something else.
Count me as one of the 1000s that think it's a poor name choice. I think it's a poor name for marketing purposes too. Best of luck with whatever is used. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
