From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266591AbUGKNiu (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:38:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266592AbUGKNiu (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:38:50 -0400 Received: from zero.aec.at ([193.170.194.10]:3082 "EHLO zero.aec.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266591AbUGKNit (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:38:49 -0400 To: Matthew Wilcox cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: serious performance regression due to NX patch References: <2giKE-67F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <2gIc8-6pd-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <2gJ8a-72b-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <2gJhY-776-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <2gJrv-7kp-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <2gLD2-qn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> From: Andi Kleen Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:38:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2gLD2-qn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (Matthew Wilcox's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:30:09 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox writes: > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 03:02:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> Apropos of nothing much, CONFIG_X86 would be preferreed here, but x86_64 >> defines that too. > > IMO, x86-64 should stop defining CONFIG_X86. It's far more common > to say "X86 && !X86_64" than it is to say X86. How about defining > CONFIG_X86_COMMON and migrating usage of X86 to X86_COMMON? Definitely not in 2.6 because it has far too much potential to add subtle bugs, and that is not appropiate for a stable release. In 2.7 maybe. Buy I would prefer to just add an truly i386 specific define like Andrew proposed. -Andi