Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:04:45 +0100 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: serious performance regression due to NX patch |
| |
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 03:38:44PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org> writes: > > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 03:02:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> Apropos of nothing much, CONFIG_X86 would be preferreed here, but x86_64 > >> defines that too. > > > > IMO, x86-64 should stop defining CONFIG_X86. It's far more common > > to say "X86 && !X86_64" than it is to say X86. How about defining > > CONFIG_X86_COMMON and migrating usage of X86 to X86_COMMON? > > Definitely not in 2.6 because it has far too much potential to > add subtle bugs, and that is not appropiate for a stable release. > In 2.7 maybe. > > Buy I would prefer to just add an truly i386 specific define > like Andrew proposed.
We already had an i386 specific define. You chose to hijack it.
-- "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain - 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/
| |