From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Thumb-2 kernel support Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:53:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20080728125336.GL32366@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20080630125110.1dc5689a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1214901131.29199.31.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <20080701014529.272706d8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1216829155.23395.19.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <20080723130140.ff016944.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1216847422.6550.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080723151045.bcae107e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080727110804.GE32366@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1217245511.20282.121.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <1217248855.20282.124.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:40643 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750889AbYG1Myp (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:54:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1217248855.20282.124.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:40:55PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 12:45 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 12:08 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 03:10:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Well. Rather than doing things sequentially we could go parallel. > > > > Russell could say "I'll look at them before 2.6.28 but please put them > > > > into linux-next meanwhile". > > > > > > There have been some valid but (iirc) non-vocal objections to the > > > Thumb-2 support from a few people. The biggest one is all the > > > mess associated with supporting this "unified" assembler stuff. > > > > My first implementation of these patches (last year) created a separate > > arch/ directory and a lot of people objected to this recommending to > > merge it into the existing arch/arm. Once I posted the re-worked > > implementation there were no big . > > It looks like I didn't finish the above phrase - I meant no big > objections to the conditional compilation or someone stating clearly > that this is unacceptable. And that's partly what I find rather frustrating. I _know_ that people have issues with it, but they haven't raised them.