From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753037AbYI3L1w (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:27:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752687AbYI3L1p (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:27:45 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:56352 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752141AbYI3L1o (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:27:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:27:28 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexander van Heukelum Cc: LKML , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86: split out dumpstack code from traps_xx.c Message-ID: <20080930112728.GD21367@elte.hu> References: <1222773135-1073-1-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1222773135-1073-1-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alexander van Heukelum wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > I intend to keep looking for possibilities to bring traps_32.c and > traps_64.c closer to each-other. One trivial way (from my point of > view) is to split out code into separate files. These two patches > split out a large piece of code that has nothing to do with hardware > traps. Are you willing to take those two patches? Or are they to > intrusive? they are not intrusive at all! The right way to do such things is to keep them in reasonably small files. > Patches are against the current master branch of the tip tree. The > defconfigs compile fine and I ran some simple configs within qemu. would be nice to bring dumpstack_32.c and dumpstack_64.c together as well. While some of the details like IST stack logic (which dont exist on 32-bit) are special, most of the glue, the iterators, the boot parameters, and even the output should be unified some more. Ingo