From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261241AbVEBRTA (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 13:19:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261233AbVEBRQa (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 13:16:30 -0400 Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:18951 "EHLO mail.muc.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261218AbVEBRPy (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 13:15:54 -0400 Date: 2 May 2005 19:15:51 +0200 Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 19:15:51 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" Cc: "Guo, Racing" , Andrew Morton , "Yu, Luming" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]porting lockless mce from x86_64 to i386 Message-ID: <20050502171551.GG27150@muc.de> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60049EED02@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60049EED02@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org > >[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Guo, Racing > >Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 6:02 PM > >To: Andi Kleen; Andrew Morton > >Cc: Yu, Luming; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >Subject: RE: [PATCH]porting lockless mce from x86_64 to i386 > > > >> > >>If Luming would not move the mce.c file from x86-64 to i386 then > >>his patch would be only 1/4 as big. I dont know why he does this > >>anyways, it seems completely pointless. > > > >mce.c mce.h and mce_intel.c are moved from x86_64 to i386. so the > >patch is very big. The motivation is to share mce code between > >x86_64 and i386 and avoid duplicate code in x86_64 and i386. > >I don't know whether I completely understand what you point. > >Correct me if I am wrong. > > I think what Andi meant was that instead of copying code from x86-64 > to i386 and making x86-64 link to this i386 copy, you can leave the > code in x86-64 and link it from i386 part of the tree. Yep. > > Doing it either way should be OK with this mce code. But I feel, > despite of the patch size, it is better to keep all the shared > code in i386 tree and link it from x86-64. Otherwise, it may become > kind of messy in future, with various links between i386 and x86-64. i386 already uses code from x86-64 (earlyprintk.c) - it is nothing new. -Andi