From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.ebshome.net (gate.ebshome.net [64.81.67.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "gate.ebshome.net", Issuer "gate.ebshome.net" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EE1687E9 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:02:06 +1100 (EST) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:02:02 -0800 From: Eugene Surovegin To: Paul Mackerras Message-ID: <20051128050202.GA23652@gate.ebshome.net> References: <1133016287.4044.65.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <17290.28508.336476.478948@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <17290.28508.336476.478948@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make ARCH=ppc build again with new syscall path List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 01:45:48PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > What do people think? Do we make ARCH=ppc use more and more stuff > from arch/powerpc, and delete the duplicates from arch/ppc, or do > people want to be conservative and keep arch/ppc largely unchanged? > (I would prefer the former, myself.) I thought initial idea was to keep arch/ppc mostly unchanged (we are in "stable" series after all :), and migrate code to arch/powerpc when it's ready. Personally, the amount of PPC/PPC64 changes in 2.6 make me nervous, looks like I'll stick with 2.4 longer than I thought for production. -- Eugene