From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262132AbVEEPOn (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2005 11:14:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262133AbVEEPOn (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2005 11:14:43 -0400 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:13073 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262132AbVEEPOT (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2005 11:14:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 17:14:15 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Andi Kleen Cc: Andrew Morton , 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: <20050505151415.GA3590@stusta.de> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60049EED02@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> <20050502171551.GG27150@muc.de> <20050502113125.19320ceb.akpm@osdl.org> <20050502191159.GI27150@muc.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050502191159.GI27150@muc.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > 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 ... ,-) >... When grep'ing whether a patch I send might break something, it's quite handy to see what belongs to which architecture. Perhaps some day someone might want to put some ACPI code under arch/ia64 and let i386 and x86_64 use it from there... What about some kind of arch/i386-x86_64-shared/ that contains the shared code? The fact that x86_64 defines CONFIG_X86 while i386 doesn't define CONFIG_X86_64 unambiguously defines an ordering, and if we really need this sharing, there's no good reason to make the chaos bigger than it is already with unidirectional sharing. > -Andi 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