From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760128AbZA2X1p (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:27:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753096AbZA2X1g (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:27:36 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:53193 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751775AbZA2X1g (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:27:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:27:28 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Tim Pepper Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: x86: unify genapic code, unify subarchitectures, remove old subarchitecture code Message-ID: <20090129232728.GD30601@elte.hu> References: <1233186180-29883-1-git-send-email-mingo@elte.hu> <87vdryw6ql.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20090129221402.GA1984@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 * Tim Pepper wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > At this point there's no technical need to kill it - it's a > > zero-overhead thing tucked away into a single .c module in > > arch/x86/kernel/numaq_32.c. I even consolidated most of its headers in > > that file, to reduce its cross section. > > Wish we'd have piped up earlier to save you a bit of work. Well bigsmp wasnt going to go away anytime soon so the de-subarching and unification work had to be done anyway. NUMAQ came along for the ride ;-) I've got some more restructuring plans in this area so the time was well spent in any case. > We can make the NUMAQ's beep still, if not boot. :) > > Reality is they're just not worth the effort any more and there's no > sign of anybody else having them. Assuming your code goes in for 2.6.30 > it'll be easy to drop NUMAQ support. Even if there's not much downside > there's also not much reason to leave it in but marked > deprecated/broken. Yes, unless there's major stability problems with the x86/apic branch we'll merge it into v2.6.30. NUMAQ is a single .c module now (default-disabled) so not much of a concern. Ingo