On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 14:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > hm. Do you have any numbers handy - what is the end-result of your > unification work, how many lines of code were unified, compared to the > total body of code in i386 and x86_64?
Well, I wasn't combining code that wasn't already combined :) Just moving code that was referenced by another arch to a common directory that showed the code is shared. So, I moved a total of 44 files that were shared. Some of these were in places where a full directory was shared (the mtrr code). And this doesn't count the Makefiles and Kconfig files that were also modified. There were only three files with the #include "../../<arch>/<path-to-file>" code. These three where early_printk.c, tsc_sync.c and msr-on-cpu.c. The rest is referenced by the Makefiles. This still doesn't make it easy to find functions via TAGS or search scripts. If you looked at the 18/18 patch, it has a list of the moved files, with the exception of the speedstep-lib.h, which was moved in it's own file, and those that referenced that header. > symbolic links perhaps? In that case i'd also introduce a common naming > scheme: x86_early_printk.c - to make sure we know it right away that > those files are bi-arch. Does the Linux code tree already support sym links? IOW, are there already sym links in the code tree? (/me probably should just look ;) So should we have an effort to label the shared code that's already shared. As Andi stated, he doesn't like "large scale" renaming since that doesn't "fix a single bug", and will only "just cause pain". Although I disagree if in the long run it will make it easier to work with. Once one knows about the crazy linking going on then it's not much of a problem, but what about all those that will have to go through this learning curve. The problem I have with the current approach is that it just isn't clean. Yes it "works", but it still is a hack. And if I do need to write code that will be shared among the two archs (still don't know for sure if this will be the case), I would like to have a clean method in doing it. I don't care what the final solution is, as long as it is clean and not a hack. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
