From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932481AbXCNSru (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:47:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932504AbXCNSru (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:47:50 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:33427 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932481AbXCNSrt (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:47:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:47:44 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Chris Wright , Rusty Russell , Glauber de Oliveira Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Make common x86 arch area for i386 and x86_64 - Take 2 Message-ID: <20070314184744.GA376@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20070314050819.536207642@goodmis.org> <1173875708.31159.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070314130531.GA27498@one.firstfloor.org> <1173879395.31159.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1173879395.31159.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:36:35AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 14:05 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > The thing is others and I (and you) are working on getting paravirt_ops > > > working for x86_64. There's a lot of overlap between i386 and x86_64. > > > Right now the i386 is ahead of x86_64 and the code seems to be put more > > > in the arch/i386 arch. So now we are going to introduce a > > > new ../../i386 hack to get to a shared paravirt_shared.c(?). Or do we > > > > What would you like exactly to share? > > I'm still working on that. Others have pressured us into consolidating > as much usable code for i386 into x86_64. This may turn out not to be > too feasible anyway. Only do it where it makes sense and is not too intrusive. Redoing the whole port just for lguest64 is probably not a good idea. -Andi