On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > The below are the minimal clean-up - a bit more could be done.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Looks good in principle. My only suggestion would be to name it something
> differently than vdir. I know that's what GNU make calls it, but it's
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The below are the minimal clean-up - a bit more could be done.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> Looks good in principle. My only suggestion would be to name it something
> differently than vdir. I know that's what GNU make calls it, but it's still
> pretty cryptic. How about just fallback-
Hi Ingo
>
> i'd like to add it here that Makefile polishing is important - it's just
> that in the context of arch/*x86* the Makefile impact of the current
> cross-arch code sharing practice is one of the smaller problems and the
> Makefiles get cleaned up via the arch/x86 merge anyway.
Partl
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 21:11 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > One of the complaints raised about the current x86_64 Makfiles are
> > the ugliness needed to reuse code from i386. Andi asked me if we
> > could do something in kbuild to make this less ug
Hi Andi & Thomas.
One of the complaints raised about the current x86_64
Makfiles are the ugliness needed to reuse code from i386.
Andi asked me if we could do something in kbuild to make
this less ugly and below are the hack I could come up with.
The trick is that in the Makefile we tell kbuild w