linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
	discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:34:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041119103418.GB30441@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <419DC922.1020809@pobox.com>

On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 05:21:22AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 01:51:17AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> >>I'd like to send a patch after 2.6.10 that removes the following from 
> >>arch/x86_64/Kconfig:
> >>
> >> config X86
> >>       bool
> >>       default y
> >
> >
> >I'm against this. Please don't do this.
> 
> An explanation would be nice.

Basically what Paul Menage said. There is a lot of common code,
and you would end up writing X86 && X86_64 more often than
X86 && !X86_64.

In addition such a change is quite intrusive and I don't
think it's a good idea to do right now because it'll very
likely introduce bugs.

If someone really thinks the X86 && !X86_64 is too ugly
(I personally don't think it is because it says clearly
what the matter is) then adding an additional X86_32 would be the right
thing to do.

-Andi

  reply	other threads:[~2004-11-19 10:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-11-19  0:51 RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86 Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19  1:14 ` Nick Piggin
2004-11-19  1:19   ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19  1:31 ` [discuss] " Paul Menage
2004-11-19 12:28   ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 12:40     ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 13:29       ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19  8:51 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 10:21   ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 10:34     ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2004-11-19 11:28       ` [discuss] " David Woodhouse
2004-11-19 11:55         ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 11:50           ` David Woodhouse
2004-11-19 12:05             ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 12:12               ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 12:19                 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 12:37                   ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 12:45                     ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 12:55                     ` linux-os
2004-11-19 13:04                       ` Jeff Garzik
2004-11-19 13:35                         ` Raul Miller
2004-11-19 14:11                   ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 13:58               ` David Woodhouse
2004-11-19 12:05       ` Adrian Bunk
2004-11-19 12:09         ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 11:18 ` Takashi Iwai
2004-11-19 22:31   ` Paul Mackerras

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20041119103418.GB30441@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=bunk@stusta.de \
    --cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
    --cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).