[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1173977839.7922.27.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:57:19 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 12:47 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 17:06 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Well I just see a lot of pain from these patches but I doubt
> > they will avoid any bugs. If people don't compile test both
> > archs they will always likely break on another. There are lots
> > of subtle dependencies that are not expressed in the pathname
> > even after this intrusive operation (e.g. in the includes).
[...]
> With the proposed patch set, what can break i386 by modifying something
> in arch/x86_64, or what can break x86_64 by modifying something in
> arch/i386? (not counting the unfinished pci shared code).
Oops, sorry, you did say "in the includes". Yeah, that holds the same
crap that I'm talking about.
$ cat include/asm-i386/stacktrace.h
#include <asm-x86_64/stacktrace.h>
Which isn't something that I would like to stay either. So it's just
something else that needs to be fixed. Not something that will
circumvent what the current patch set is trying to do.
-- Steve
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists