From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261713AbVEBTMG (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 15:12:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261714AbVEBTMF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 15:12:05 -0400 Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:33547 "EHLO mail.muc.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261713AbVEBTMA (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 15:12:00 -0400 Date: 2 May 2005 21:11:59 +0200 Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 21:11:59 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Andrew Morton Cc: venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, racing.guo@intel.com, luming.yu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]porting lockless mce from x86_64 to i386 Message-ID: <20050502191159.GI27150@muc.de> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60049EED02@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> <20050502171551.GG27150@muc.de> <20050502113125.19320ceb.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050502113125.19320ceb.akpm@osdl.org> 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 11:31:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > I must say I don't like the bidirectional sharing either. Why exactly? X86-64 is not a "slave" of i386, they are equal peers; free to share from each other, but none better than the other ... ,-) -Andi (fighting for the rights of the repressed architectures ;-) > > But I guess it'll be simple enough to fix up if it causes any real problems > in the future. The only complaint I heard so far was from a kernel hacker who deleted all non i386 architectures in his kernel trees, but I was not very sympathetic to that one. In fact I think it is better when people have full trees around so when they change something globally grep finds really all instances. -Andi >