lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port
Date
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-12 09:01    [W:0.454 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site