Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port | Date | Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:38:08 +0930 |
| |
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:53:35 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Rusty,
Hi Catalin,
This is fun!
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 06:26:49AM +0100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > I know it's a crazy idea, but why don't we try some actual analysis? > > This kind of analysis is not relevant. It's not like you can use a tool > to just mix the lines from one file with another and get a merged port.
Whether a tool or human would do it, using some methodology to measure similarity of two ports seems more informative than relying on the gut feel of developers.
> The tool claims unicore32 shares 57% with arch/arm. It gets confused in > the same way because unicore32 started with the ARM port as the code > base. Do we want it merged with arch/arm based on hashmatch?
It doesn't "get confused"; it means exactly what it says. Sure, it's rough, but it's unbiased.
And it indicates that arch/aarch64 is as related to arch/arm as arch/unicore32 is, ie. no more than expected from an arm-derived port. (I actually get 56% for unicore32, 52% for aarch64).
Thus I consider my previous position proven incorrect: aarch64 should be its own tree.
> This tool also shows that pretty much most of the atomic.h file in > AArch64 is the same with AArch32. That's completely wrong as the > assembly syntax is different for the two architectures (even the asm > comment has changed from @ to //). That's a file that can never be > shared.
That's why I subtracted a randomly-chosen other arch (sparc) to try to eliminate such boilerplate similarities.
Cheers, Rusty.
| |