From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: ak@suse.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:51:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041119005117.GM4943@stusta.de> (raw)
I'd like to send a patch after 2.6.10 that removes the following from
arch/x86_64/Kconfig:
config X86
bool
default y
Additionally, I'll also check all current X86 uses to prevent breakages.
Why?
X86 is _the_ symbol to identify the i386 architecture, but the x86_64
port hijacked it. Kernel-wise, x86_64 is mostly simply a new port like
e.g. ia64.
Where is the problem?
To say "X86", you currently have to write "(X86 && !X86_64)" in the
Kconfig file. This is not intuitive.
Why is e.g. CONFIG_LBD available on x86_64 and even enabled in
defconfig?
Isn't this an incompatible change?
Yes it is.
But according to the current development model, such changes are allowed
in 2.6 .
And if you want to support both older and more recent kernels, the
following dependencies will be correct both before and after this
change:
- (X86 && !X86_64)
- (X86 && X86_64)
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next reply other threads:[~2004-11-19 0:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-19 0:51 Adrian Bunk [this message]
2004-11-19 1:14 ` RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86 Nick Piggin
2004-11-19 1:19 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 1:31 ` [discuss] " Paul Menage
2004-11-19 12:28 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 12:40 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 13:29 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 8:51 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 10:21 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 10:34 ` [discuss] " Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 11:28 ` David Woodhouse
2004-11-19 11:55 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 11:50 ` David Woodhouse
2004-11-19 12:05 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 12:12 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 12:19 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 12:37 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 12:45 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 12:55 ` linux-os
2004-11-19 13:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 13:35 ` Raul Miller
2004-11-19 14:11 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 13:58 ` David Woodhouse
2004-11-19 12:05 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 12:09 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 11:18 ` Takashi Iwai
2004-11-19 22:31 ` Paul Mackerras
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041119005117.GM4943@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox