On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:36:23 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:32:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:14:22 +0200 Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > People do not expect code under arch/i386/ to be used by code under > > > arch/x86_64/ and vice versa. > > > > [OT: it drives me batshit that we ended up including stuff in both > > directions] > > Why? It's more complex, obviously. More surprising. It used to be the case that arch/x86^4 files were xx86_64 and arch/i386 files were i386 and possibly x86_64. Now it's the case that arch/x86_64 files are x86_64 and maybe i386 and arch/i386 files are i386 and maybe x86_64. Additional and quite unnecessary complexity. I mean, how often do x86_64 changes in your tree break i386? Once every 3ish weeks would be my guess. Often this will be because the person making (and reviewing) the x86_64 change didn't know (or forgot) that the file is also used by x86_64. > Anyways, i wouldn't have a problem with putting the already shared > files into a different directory or move it over to one of the architectures, > although I must admit I personally wouldn't see a big benefit from it. But if > it gives people a warm fuzzy feeling I'm all for it. Doing something like that would reduce complexity, reduce surprise and increase maintainability. That's more than warm-and-fuzzies. - 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/