Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:34:27 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] modularization of i386 setup_arch and mem_init in 2.4.18 |
| |
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 10:33:30PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote: > As a sidenote (sort of related topic) : > An idea being kicked around a little right now is x86 subarch > support for 2.5. With so many of the niche x86 spin-offs appearing > lately, all fighting for their own piece of various files in > arch/i386/kernel/, it may be time to do the same as the ARM folks did, > and have.. > > arch/i386/generic/ > arch/i386/numaq/ > arch/i386/visws > arch/i386/voyager/ > etc..
YES!!! I've been working on the Foster patches and keep thinking that this would be the best solution to our current #ifdef hell.
> I've been meaning to find some time to move the necessary bits around, > and jiggle configs to see how it would work out, but with a pending > house move, I haven't got around to it yet.. Maybe next week. > > The downsides to this: > - Code duplication. > Some routines will likely be very similar if not identical. > - Bug propagation. > If something is fixed in one subarch, theres a high possibility > it needs fixing in other subarchs
Make sure that every subarch has a maintainer/someone to blame who needs to make sure their subarch also keeps up to date with the "generic" one would help out a lot with this problem.
> The plus sides of this: > - Removal of #ifdef noise > With more and more of these subarchs appearing, this is getting > more of an issue. > - subarchs are free to do things 'their way' without affecting the > common case.
I think Martin's recent CONFIG_MULTIQUAD patches prove that the plus side would outweigh any possible downside :)
thanks,
greg k-h - 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/
| |