Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:28:34 -0300 | From | "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86 |
| |
On 7/21/07, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > [of which several just #include <asm-generic/foo.h] ? > > I suppose msidef.h and hypertransport.h should be shared agreed; > for the others it is not obvious. spinlock_types will likely fork soon; > it used to be different in the past already and will be again. Why will it fork? I don't think it will ever happen that the trees will have large pieces that _has_ to be different one from the other. So if it's forking to achieve some benefits, why can't i386 get the benefits too? I think this is the whole point here.
Surely as it is today (and just because it wasn't merged earlier and the past!), the x86_64 tree has a bunch of things that are quite better structured than the i386 (and maybe vice-versa, but I must admit that unlike Steven Roasted, I like the x86_64 a lot more). But in the long term, it tends to just get the best of each picked up.
And oh yeah, i386 is older, has a lot more corner cases, but even if it does count against the merge, we have a net win at the end.
-- 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/
| |