From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ausmtp06.au.ibm.com (ausmtp06.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ausmtp06.au.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA65DDEBF for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:02:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by ausmtp06.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7L350ND4657234 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:05:00 +1000 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.244]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l7L35vCg159282 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:05:57 +1000 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l7L32N1G011450 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:02:24 +1000 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:50:15 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Josh Boyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v2] Remove need for include/asm-ppc Message-ID: <20070821025015.GN15469@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070820060000.GA26100@localhost.localdomain> <20070820103719.23f50f64@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <46C9B6DF.1000006@freescale.com> <20070821014707.GA15469@localhost.localdomain> <20070820214730.1b3b6fd6@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070820214730.1b3b6fd6@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 09:47:30PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:47:07 +1000 > David Gibson wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:44:31AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:32:43 -0500 > > > > Kumar Gala wrote: > > > >>Do we want to go and move stuff back out of arch/powerpc/kernel > > > >>back into arch/ppc/kernel? or just include files? > > > > > > > > > > > > What would be the point of doing that? I would think we want the > > > > opposite, in that we want to reuse as much of arch/powerpc during > > > > arch/ppc compiles as possible. Sort of shows how much is "left" > > > > to port. > > > > > > The point would be to keep the two trees separate, so that one > > > doesn't need to worry about breaking arch/ppc when making a change > > > to arch/powerpc. > > > > Exactly so. Having to be careful about not breaking arch/ppc when > > doing cleanups for arch/powerpc is a pain in the bum. > > How many times has that happened recently? If it's fairly infrequent, It's infrequent because I've shyed away from cleaning up shared files, precisely because I'm afraid of breaking arch/ppc. > then just do the split when you're doing the arch/powerpc cleanup. I'm > still not convinced that doing a wholesale split again is worth the > effort. > > But then again, I'm not opposed either. Particularly if someone else > is doing the work :). It simply doesn't make tons of sense to my > feeble little brain. Seems like that time could be spent better > elsewhere. > > josh > -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson