All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: ak@suse.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:51:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041119005117.GM4943@stusta.de> (raw)

I'd like to send a patch after 2.6.10 that removes the following from 
arch/x86_64/Kconfig:

  config X86
        bool
        default y

Additionally, I'll also check all current X86 uses to prevent breakages.


Why?

X86 is _the_ symbol to identify the i386 architecture, but the x86_64 
port hijacked it. Kernel-wise, x86_64 is mostly simply a new port like 
e.g. ia64.


Where is the problem?

To say "X86", you currently have to write "(X86 && !X86_64)" in the 
Kconfig file. This is not intuitive.

Why is e.g. CONFIG_LBD available on x86_64 and even enabled in 
defconfig?


Isn't this an incompatible change?

Yes it is.
But according to the current development model, such changes are allowed 
in 2.6 .

And if you want to support both older and more recent kernels, the 
following dependencies will be correct both before and after this 
change:
- (X86 && !X86_64)
- (X86 && X86_64)


cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


             reply	other threads:[~2004-11-19  0:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-11-19  0:51 Adrian Bunk [this message]
2004-11-19  1:14 ` RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86 Nick Piggin
2004-11-19  1:19   ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19  1:31 ` [discuss] " Paul Menage
2004-11-19 12:28   ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 12:40     ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 13:29       ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19  8:51 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 10:21   ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 10:34     ` [discuss] " Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 11:28       ` David Woodhouse
2004-11-19 11:55         ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 11:50           ` David Woodhouse
2004-11-19 12:05             ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 12:12               ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 12:19                 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 12:37                   ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 12:45                     ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 12:55                     ` linux-os
2004-11-19 13:04                       ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 13:35                         ` Raul Miller
2004-11-19 14:11                   ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 13:58               ` David Woodhouse
2004-11-19 12:05       ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 12:09         ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 11:18 ` Takashi Iwai
2004-11-19 22:31   ` Paul Mackerras

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20041119005117.GM4943@stusta.de \
    --to=bunk@stusta.de \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.