Re: [PATCH]porting lockless mce from x86_64 to i386

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:11:59PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:31:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >  > 
> > >  > Doing it either way should be OK with this mce code. But I feel, 
> > >  > despite of the patch size, it is better to keep all the shared 
> > >  > code in i386 tree and link it from x86-64. Otherwise, it may become 
> > >  > kind of messy in future, with various links between i386 and x86-64.
> > > 
> > >  i386 already uses code from x86-64 (earlyprintk.c) - it is nothing 
> > >  new.
> > 
> > I must say I don't like the bidirectional sharing either.
> 
> Why exactly? X86-64 is not a "slave" of i386, they are equal peers; 
> free to share from each other, but none better than the other ... ,-) 
>...

When grep'ing whether a patch I send might break something, it's quite 
handy to see what belongs to which architecture.

Perhaps some day someone might want to put some ACPI code under 
arch/ia64 and let i386 and x86_64 use it from there...

What about some kind of arch/i386-x86_64-shared/ that contains the 
shared code?

The fact that x86_64 defines CONFIG_X86 while i386 doesn't define 
CONFIG_X86_64 unambiguously defines an ordering, and if we really need 
this sharing, there's no good reason to make the chaos bigger than it is 
already with unidirectional sharing.

> -Andi

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/