From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935929AbXGUJDI (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:03:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932127AbXGUJCz (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:02:55 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:33951 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932121AbXGUJCz (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:02:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86 From: Rusty Russell To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Andi Kleen , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Arjan van de Ven , Chris Wright , Steven Rostedt In-Reply-To: <1185005750.4012.100.camel@chaos> References: <1184970779.4012.38.camel@chaos> <200707210737.59552.ak@suse.de> <1185005750.4012.100.camel@chaos> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:02:29 +1000 Message-Id: <1185008549.6344.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 10:15 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 07:37 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Saturday 21 July 2007 00:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some > > > time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like > > > to solicit feedback about it. > > > > Well you know my position on this. I think it's a bad idea because > > it means we can never get rid of any old junk. IMNSHO arch/x86_64 > > is significantly cleaner and simpler in many ways than arch/i386 and I would > > like to preserve that. Also in general arch/x86_64 is much easier to hack > > than arch/i386 because it's easier to regression test and in general > > has to care about much less junk. And I don't > > know of any way to ever fix that for i386 besides splitting the old > > stuff off completely. > > I disagree of course. > > I worked on both trees quite intensive over the last years and I broke > x86_64 more than once when hacking on i386 and vice versa. Me too. At the very least I'd like to see asm-x86/ for headers used by both. That said, the merge is exactly as I'd have done it. So if this were a democracy, I'd vote in favour. Cheers, Rusty.