From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757851AbXL3PKm (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:10:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757062AbXL3PKM (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:10:12 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:60096 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754479AbXL3PKF (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:10:05 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:06:02 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH - RFC] x86: unify arch/x86/kernel/Makefile(s) Message-ID: <20071230150602.GU16946@elte.hu> References: <20071230082952.GA12327@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20071230145517.GT16946@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071230145517.GT16946@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Combine the 32 and 64 bit specific Makefiles in one file. While > > doing so link order was (almost) preserved on 32 bit but on 64 bit > > link order changed a lot. > > > > Patch was checked with defconfig + allyesconfig builds. The same .o > > files were linked in these configurations. > > > > To keep readability of the Makefiles a few Kconfig symbols was > > added/modified and it was checked that they were not used anywhere > > else. > > hm, i agree with this change, but would it be possible to split this > up into gradual steps, to change the rules on 64-bit one by one? That > would make it much more bisectable. In our experience changes to the > link order have a high likelyhood of breaking stuff, as we've got so > many implicit initcall dependencies that are not explicitly spelled > out. i've added your full patch meanwhile - maybe we can get away with it. Still, if you see any easy way to do a straightforward series of ~40 patches that changes one link rule per patch then that would be great and we could add them as an easier-to-bisect replacement for this one large-scope patch. Ingo