From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:28:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041119122827.GB22981@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6599ad8304111817317880dfe5@mail.google.com>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 05:31:14PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:51:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> 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
> >
> > Additionally, I'll also check all current X86 uses to prevent breakages.
>
> Or, you could define an X86_32 config symbol in i386. This seems a
> little more backward compatible, and means that you can continue to
> just test X86 for the rather large set of code that works fine on both
> 32-bit and 64-bit.
>
> I guess it depends on whether you think there are more places in the
> generic code that the two architectures share code, vs places that are
> 32-bit only.
We are not talking about thousands of places.
We are talking about less than hundred places.
And many people do currently get it wrong like with CONFIG_LBD.
The most important improvement would be to prevent such bugs and to have
the X86_64 dependency explicitely stated.
The #ifdef CONFIG_X86 in init/main.c is an example where it currently
takes some time to understand whether it's correct or a bug.
X86_32 would be a solution, but it would IMHO also create confusion
since i386 and ia64 also have some things in common (e.g. ACPI support).
The cleanest thing is simply, to state X86_64 dependencies explicitely.
> Paul
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-19 12:31 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 [this message]
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 ` [discuss] " Andi Kleen
2004-11-19 11:28 ` 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=20041119122827.GB22981@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
/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).