Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:28:28 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [discuss] RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86 |
| |
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
- 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/
| |