From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758132AbXL3VLV (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:11:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754446AbXL3VLN (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:11:13 -0500 Received: from pasmtpa.tele.dk ([80.160.77.114]:41899 "EHLO pasmtpA.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752095AbXL3VLM (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:11:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:11:08 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH - RFC] x86: unify arch/x86/kernel/Makefile(s) Message-ID: <20071230211108.GA14386@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <20071230082952.GA12327@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20071230145517.GT16946@elte.hu> <20071230150602.GU16946@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071230150602.GU16946@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 04:06:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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. If it turns out to cause troubles I will redo it in a few smaller steps. But I will have to do it by hand so most likely less than 10 steps. Sam