[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/18] Make common x86 arch area for i386 and x86_64 - Take 2
    On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 14:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

    > hm. Do you have any numbers handy - what is the end-result of your
    > unification work, how many lines of code were unified, compared to the
    > total body of code in i386 and x86_64?

    Well, I wasn't combining code that wasn't already combined :)

    Just moving code that was referenced by another arch to a common
    directory that showed the code is shared.

    So, I moved a total of 44 files that were shared. Some of these were in
    places where a full directory was shared (the mtrr code). And this
    doesn't count the Makefiles and Kconfig files that were also modified.

    There were only three files with the
    #include "../../<arch>/<path-to-file>" code.
    These three where early_printk.c, tsc_sync.c and msr-on-cpu.c.
    The rest is referenced by the Makefiles. This still doesn't make it easy
    to find functions via TAGS or search scripts.

    If you looked at the 18/18 patch, it has a list of the moved files, with
    the exception of the speedstep-lib.h, which was moved in it's own file,
    and those that referenced that header.

    > symbolic links perhaps? In that case i'd also introduce a common naming
    > scheme: x86_early_printk.c - to make sure we know it right away that
    > those files are bi-arch.

    Does the Linux code tree already support sym links? IOW, are there
    already sym links in the code tree? (/me probably should just look ;)

    So should we have an effort to label the shared code that's already
    shared. As Andi stated, he doesn't like "large scale" renaming since
    that doesn't "fix a single bug", and will only "just cause pain".
    Although I disagree if in the long run it will make it easier to work
    with. Once one knows about the crazy linking going on then it's not
    much of a problem, but what about all those that will have to go through
    this learning curve.

    The problem I have with the current approach is that it just isn't
    clean. Yes it "works", but it still is a hack. And if I do need to
    write code that will be shared among the two archs (still don't know for
    sure if this will be the case), I would like to have a clean method in
    doing it. I don't care what the final solution is, as long as it is
    clean and not a hack.

    -- Steve

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-14 15:49    [W:0.021 / U:13.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site