Re: mpparse_{32,64}.c merge questions

Re: mpparse_{32,64}.c merge questions

[Len Brown]

On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> (more folks Cc:-ed)
> 
> * Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> >>> I've decided to start with merge of mpparse files, and I'd like to 
> >>> know your opinion on some differences... Ingo, I know you work on 
> >>> merging the 32/64 files, do I step on your toes?
> >>
> >> My suggestion would be to do a redesign first and then do that for 
> >> both.
> > I was thinking that redesign on one file would go easier... And we 
> > don't need both, do we?
> 
> we dont, but please do _not_ "redesign" anything during unification.
> 
> try to keep it simple and bisectable. Lots of small patches. Stupid
> #ifdefs if need to be. Pick the 32-bit version or the 64-bit version of
> any approach, if it's obvious that the unified version will still work 
> fine. Ask if in doubt.


I agree with Ingo on the "keep it simple" merge steps..

I can't resist mentioning, however, what I'd like to see long term.

I'd like to see mpparse.o depend on CONFIG_MPS=y
I'd like to be able to build CONFIG_ACPI=y and CONFIG_MPS=n

Andy Grover prototyped splititing MPS from ACPI a while back,
but it never made it upstream.

thanks,
-Len

Re: mpparse_{32,64}.c merge questions

[Alexey Starikovskiy]

Len Brown wrote:
> I agree with Ingo on the "keep it simple" merge steps..
> 
> I can't resist mentioning, however, what I'd like to see long term.
> 
> I'd like to see mpparse.o depend on CONFIG_MPS=y
> I'd like to be able to build CONFIG_ACPI=y and CONFIG_MPS=n
That was original goal set by Andy Kleen.

Thanks,
Alex.

Re: mpparse_{32,64}.c merge questions

[Ingo Molnar]

* Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:

> > we dont, but please do _not_ "redesign" anything during unification.
> > 
> > try to keep it simple and bisectable. Lots of small patches. Stupid
> > #ifdefs if need to be. Pick the 32-bit version or the 64-bit version 
> > of any approach, if it's obvious that the unified version will still 
> > work fine. Ask if in doubt.
> 
> I agree with Ingo on the "keep it simple" merge steps..
> 
> I can't resist mentioning, however, what I'd like to see long term.
> 
> I'd like to see mpparse.o depend on CONFIG_MPS=y
> I'd like to be able to build CONFIG_ACPI=y and CONFIG_MPS=n
> 
> Andy Grover prototyped splititing MPS from ACPI a while back, but it 
> never made it upstream.

sure and agreed. And this absolutely has to happen in a separate 
patchset. Unification is done best by not changing much and by delaying 
any difficult change to as late in the unification effort as possible. 
(thus any non-trivial change, if it breaks things and has to be 
reverted, wont pull another 100 "easy" changes with itself)

	Ingo