![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 7/20/07, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> 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 having a clean way to do per 32/64 bit parts as > > well is something that imo is the right thing. > > > > Not to mention all the paravirt stuff that's going on. Having a single > x86 arch to work with would be greatly beneficial to the work being done > to port paravirt to x86_64. As for paravirt, it'd really help. As I had the tree lagged behind by so much, a great part of the work now is checking where i386 is, seeing if it applies for 64-bit, and so on. The differences are not so huge, and I'm trying my best to not let them deviate too much. It could mostly be built incrementally. And I bet a huge part of the tree could be like this too: In most places, they are different for no particular reason, just because two people implemented it separately. There'd be a huge effort to bring those differences into an end, but I think I'd pay in future development speed. (not to mention the duplicate bugs linus have already talked about) > Way to go, Thomas and Ingo! I am pretty much for it too. -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-07-21 02:43 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||