On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:05:58 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2007, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > > > The point would be to keep the two trees separate, so that one > > > > > doesn't need to worry about breaking arch/ppc when making a change > > > > > to arch/powerpc. > > > > > > > > Exactly so. Having to be careful about not breaking arch/ppc when > > > > doing cleanups for arch/powerpc is a pain in the bum. > > > > > > How many times has that happened recently? If it's fairly infrequent, > > > > It's infrequent because I've shyed away from cleaning up shared files, > > precisely because I'm afraid of breaking arch/ppc. > > How about splitting the files on a per-case bases then? There are at least > 95 files that would need to be duplicated (again) to make ppc independent > from powerpc, and most of these files are about userland interfaces where > duplication makes no sense at all. Sure. I said that in my previous reply too. > Some files in there (irq.h, ipic.h, dcr.h, i8259.h) already have large > parts hidden in #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE, so I guess for those it may > actually be interesting to split them in two again. Yeah, for those it might. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
