lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port
From
Date
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 11:10 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:10:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > On Saturday 07 July 2012, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > > > ARM introduced AArch64 as part of the ARMv8 architecture
> > > >
> > > > With the risk of bikeshedding here, but I find the name awkward. How
> > > > about just naming the arch port arm64 instead? It's considerably more
> > > > descriptive in the context of the kernel. For reference, we didn't
> > > > name ppc64, nor powerpc, after what the IBM/power.org marketing people
> > > > were currently calling the architecture at the time either.
> > >
> > > I agree the name sucks, [...]
> >
> > So why not change it now, when it only bothers a few dozen
> > people and it is only present in 36 patches? Why go full steam
> > ahead to annoy thousands of people with it and why spread the
> > naming madness to thousands of commits?
>
> Changing the arch/ dir name is easy at this point. My preference is for
> consistency with the official name (that cannot be changed) and the gcc
> triplet. I also don't think it annoys thousands of people, most don't
> really care. The few reactions I've seen is pretty much because people
> were expecting arm64 and it came as something else.

Count me as one of the 1000s that think it's a poor name choice.
I think it's a poor name for marketing purposes too.

Best of luck with whatever is used.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-10 20:01    [W:1.068 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site