linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/18] Make common x86 arch area for i386 and x86_64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45F97971.7080000@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:50:57 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Make common x86 arch area for i386 and x86_64 -
 Take 2

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>symbolic links perhaps? In that case i'd also introduce a common 
>>>naming scheme: x86_early_printk.c - to make sure we know it right 
>>>away that those files are bi-arch.
>>
>>Hey, I know! This is a radical idea, but what if we put the name at 
>>the head of the file, and called it
>>
>>	arch/x86/kernel/early_printk.c
>>
>>instead? Then we could teach each of i386 and x86-64 to include it 
>>from that area, and we could put other shared files under the same 
>>directory hierarchy so that it would be easy to see which ones are 
>>shared?
> 
> 
> that is nice too, but it has some disadvantages as well in practice. For 
> example i often want to see 'everything' that belongs to an arch in just 
> one subdirectory. That way one can grep it for example, instead of 
> having to grep two separate places. Symlinks would be fine for that, but 
> an explicit split not really i think - unless we can get some really 
> significant chunk of code into that hierarchy, so that it makes 
> functional /sense/ to look at it in isolation.
> 
> with the prefix suggestion we can keep these 'shared' files merged in a 
> single, main functional tree (x86_64), but still have them marked in the 
> VFS as being shared. But ... either way is fine to me - no strong 
> feelings, really.

You could do both. Have the x86 directory that Linus suggests for shared
files, then have the build system generate the symlinks for you.

Could have arch/x86_64/kernel/common arch/x86_64/mm/common etc. symlinks.
that point to arch/x86/kernel, arch/x86/mm etc.

This way you know exactly which files are shared and which are not, which
is basically impossible without a grep currently. You also get to do a
single grep of all arch code. Best of both worlds? Or do I miss something?

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/