* Pavel Machek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I believe there's still a lot that can be merged, and I'm responsible
> for some of it. Parts of suspend code should be shared, yet they are
> in differently named files in differently named directories.
>
> Ok, I guess I should fix it, arch/x86 or not.
Hi!
> > This patch was the beginning of the merger, not the end result. It strived
> > for binary identical images. It was to put everything together as a
> > _starting_point_! The next thing to do after this is to start the
> > merging.
>
> Well we've been merging what makes sense since severa
On Jul 21 2007 23:17, . . wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: . . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Jul 21, 2007 11:08 PM
> Subject: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 09:50:46AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 16:51 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Can we see some stats on:
> > >
> > > How many files were auto-merged?
> > > How many files got 32.c and 64.c extensions?
>
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 16:51 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Can we see some stats on:
> >
> > How many files were auto-merged?
> > How many files got 32.c and 64.c extensions?
> > How many existed only in one arch?
>
> It's mostly about file movement fir
* Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Can we see some stats on:
>
> How many files were auto-merged?
> How many files got 32.c and 64.c extensions?
> How many existed only in one arch?
It's mostly about file movement first.
Kbuild |8 +-
Mak
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 12:32:59AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> How is the new arch/x86 and include/asm-x86 namespace layed out? Our
> foremost concern was to enable a 100% smooth transition to the new,
> shared architecture, while still enabling much more fine-grained future
> unification of
* From: Alan Cox
* Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:55:12 +0100
* Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
>
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:38:39 -0400
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAI
-- Forwarded message --
From: . . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PRO
> Besides radical file movements like this are bad anyways. They cause
> a big break in patchkits and forward/backwards porting that doesn't
> really help anybody.
Sorry Andi but I strongly disagree with your disapproval of this.
for existing out of tree patches it's not a big break, it's one
On 7/21/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[of which several just #include
Why will it fork? I don't think it will ever happen that the trees
will have large pieces that _has_ to be different one from the other.
So if it's forking to achieve some benefits, why can't i386 get the
benefits
* Brian Gerst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And there is more of that, when you take the time and look closely
> > at the _32.[ch] _64.[ch] files which are created by the merge.
>
> Looking at the include files, many more are near-identical in trivial
> ways, such as whitespace, comments, loc
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 07:37 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> On Saturday 21 July 2007 00:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> As an initial matter, we made it painstakingly sure that the resulting
>>> .o files in a 32-bit build are bit for bit equal.
>> You got not a single line less
Thanks for doing this, it's definitely the way to go.
After a quick look over it, I noted a small mistake:
After the arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile -> arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_64
transition, the three foo-$(subst m,y,$(CONFIG_BAR)) got replaced with
foo-$(CONFIG_BAR).
Although the subst's look fish
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 00:32 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> to solicit feedback about it.
Oooh, shiny. We've been talking about how useful this would be
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 10:15 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 07:37 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 July 2007 00:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> > > time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "a
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It happens so often that someone accidentally breaks one
> > architecture because he didn't notice the code also gets used on the
> > other architecture.
>
> That's not changing at all. Especially with even more sharing, (than I
> think would be pru
On Saturday 21 July 2007 10:15:50 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> The script detected 15 identical files with a simple cmp.
You mean
arch/i386/boot/.gitignore
arch/i386/boot/tools/.gitignore
arch/i386/oprofile/Kconfig
include/asm-i386/poll.h
include/asm-i386/emergency-restart.h
include/asm-i386/sp
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 07:37 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 21 July 2007 00:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> > time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> > to solicit feedback about it.
>
> We
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 09:42 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > It happens so often that someone accidentally breaks one architecture
> > because he didn't notice the code also gets used on the other
> > architecture.
>
> That's not changing at all. Especially with even more sharing, (than I think
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 09:42:48AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 21 July 2007 09:35:33 Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > The problem with the current "merging" is that it's extremely hard to
> > figure out whether some code in x86_64 might be using some code in i386
> > since there are currently
On Saturday 21 July 2007 09:35:33 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The problem with the current "merging" is that it's extremely hard to
> figure out whether some code in x86_64 might be using some code in i386
> since there are currently 5 (five) different mechanisms used for sharing
> code between the tw
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 08:06:11AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 21 July 2007 07:50:46 Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > This patch was the beginning of the merger, not the end result. It strived
> > for binary identical images. It was to put everything together as a
> > _starting_point_! Th
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> to solicit feedback about it.
>
kvm will really like this. while kvm will always have #ifdefs for i386
and x86_64, this work
> > It's not really the same platform: one is PC hardware going back forever
> > with zillions of bugs, the other is modern PC platforms which much less
> > bugs and quirks
>
> hehe, I'm seeing a bunch of bugs and quirks appear. It's just that
> x86_64 isn't as old as i386 to have as many of the
On Saturday 21 July 2007 07:50:46 Steven Rostedt wrote:
> This patch was the beginning of the merger, not the end result. It strived
> for binary identical images. It was to put everything together as a
> _starting_point_! The next thing to do after this is to start the
> merging.
Well we've b
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 21 July 2007 00:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> > time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> > to solicit feedback about it.
>
> Well you know my
> On Saturday 21 July 2007 01:55, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >
> > I really like this idea - code duplication is a bad thing.
>
> Did you actually look at the patch? It doesn't have a single line
> less duplication than there was before. Everything that could
> be easily shared was shared already
On Saturday 21 July 2007 01:55, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21/07/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> > time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> > to solicit feedback about
On Saturday 21 July 2007 00:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> to solicit feedback about it.
Well you know my position on this. I think it's a bad idea because
i
On 7/20/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some
> arch/i386 stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
we can leave those few items in arch/x86 just as much. No need to keep
around a
On 7/20/07, Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really like the idea of a unified source tree for the 2 x86 variants.
> The technical differences are really small (of course there are
> differences, especially in the boot sequence), and striving to unify as
> much as possible while hav
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 21 July 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> In my experience, it's very helpful to have a single set of header
> files, and merging the two versions of one header usually exposes
> bugs that have been fixed in only one of the two, so you get
>
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
[...]
> As usual, comments and suggestions are welcome!
Compiles and boots fine here ( on my Dell Precision WorkStation 530 MT ). And
nothing broke so far.
I only got some Kconfig warnings[1] with my config[2] but that is.
( I don't know whatever this matter but it b
On Saturday 21 July 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The topic of sharing more x86 code has been discussed on LKML a number
> of times. Various approaches were discussed and we decided to advance
> the discussion by implementing a full solution that brings the
> transition to a shared tree to comp
On 21/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> >time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd
> >like to solicit feedback about it.
> >
> >What is thi
Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:38:39 -0400
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some arch/i386
>> stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
>
> Its easy enough to push that stuff into arch/x86/legacy and have one
> s
* Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> >time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd
> >like to solicit feedback about it.
> >
> >What is this about?
> [..]
> >As usual, comments and suggestion
Hi,
On 21/07/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
to solicit feedback about it.
What is this about?
[..]
As usual, comments and suggestions are
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:38:39 -0400
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some arch/i386
> stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
Its easy enough to push that stuff into arch/x86/legacy and have one
subdirectory of stuff to pull i
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 00:32 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> > time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> > to solicit feedback about it.
>
>
>
> I r
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 00:32 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> to solicit feedback about it.
I really like the idea of a unified source tree for the 2 x86
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some arch/i386
> > > stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
> >
> > we can leave those few items in arch/x86 just
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some
arch/i386 stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
we can leave those few items in arch/x86 just as much. No need to keep
around a legacy tree for that.
By extensi
* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some
> arch/i386 stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
we can leave those few items in arch/x86 just as much. No need to keep
around a legacy tree for that.
Ingo
-
To unsubscrib
I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some arch/i386
stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
Jeff
-
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
We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
to solicit feedback about it.
What is this about?
---
The topic of sharing more x86 code has been discussed on LKML a number
of times. Vari
47 matches
Mail list logo
