Re: [PATCH 00/18] Make common x86 arch area for i386 and x86_64 - Take 2

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

> > Andrew's laptop only half a dozen times! ;) But .. in the long run, 
> > it's alot easier to think about unified code. 32-bit x86 will 
> > certainly stay with us for at least 10-20 years, and the best model 
> > for maintainance is having one codebase.
> 
> Not sure -- i'm often glad I don't have to care about all the old 
> 32bit systems on x86-64. [...]

the basic dynamics of legacies does not change if we have only 50% of 
them: right now x86_64 is just growing its own set of legacies, at the 
same rate as i386 did it 10 years ago. That makes little difference in 
practice: those legacies will quickly necessiate the _same_ kinds of 
abstractions that allow the flexible injection of hardware-dependent 
quirks. In another 5 years the x86_64 tree will end up looking and 
behaving _just like the i386_ tree, the only difference will be less 
compatibility. (In fact, it will likely look worse because currently our 
efforts are 50% split between i386 and x86_64, and the random 
differences between the two arches are wasting developer resources.)

so we might as well unify the two trees and /learn/ from i386's 
legacies, while integrating them. Those legacies, by the rule of large 
numbers, will revisit x86_64 too (or have already visited it). We 
already have per-APIC-version quirks, per CPU model quirks, etc., etc. 
The main cost of a quirk is the abstraction it necessiates, not the 
quirk handler itself. (which, once the framework is there, is modular)

Also, 90% of our users are still running 32bit kernels _even on 64-bit 
capable hardware_, so we might as well prepare ourselves for a really 
long march towards a pure 64-bit world. (Which will likely never come.)

	Ingo