From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754307AbYG3Sc5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:32:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752388AbYG3Sct (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:32:49 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:53102 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752296AbYG3Scs (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:32:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:32:01 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Jeff Dike , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86: use arch/x86/include Message-ID: <20080730183201.GA26389@elte.hu> References: <20080730124952.GA23413@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20080730180411.GA7896@elte.hu> <4890B153.6050305@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4890B153.6050305@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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 * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Sam Ravnborg wrote: >> >>> Hi x86 guys. >>> >>> It turned out to be easy to enable um to use arch/x86/include so here >>> is a git pull. >> >> hm, we have a _ton_ of changes to include files queued up already, so >> this is rather inconvenient. > > Git *should* be able to track those changes across a rename and even > with a rename on one branch and changes on another; in my experience > it works well for filename renames, but git doesn't understand > directory renames at all, so new files do have to be moved to their > new locations manually. yes, it copes in some cases - but i've had rather bad experiences with it. the reason i raised this is because i tried to pull Sam's renames, and they created 48 conflicts. >> I missed the discussion on this, what's the point of renaming all these >> files? > > I know there has been talk about this on and off for a long time (to > get all the arch code into arch/). I don't know if there are any > mechanical reasons for it, on top of that. hm, seems rather pointless to me, i thought there might be some better reasons for it. Historically we've put all include files into include/asm-* - why upset the decade-long status quo now without strong technical reasons? Ingo