[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45FE8BD9.9010009@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:10:49 -0400
From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH take3 00/20] Make common x86 arch area for i386 and x86_64
- Take 3
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> what do you think about the idea i suggested: to do an x32_/x64_ prefix
>>> (or _32/_64 postfix), in a brute-force way, _right away_. I.e. do not
>>> have any overlap of having both arch/i386/ and arch/x86_64/ and
>>> arch/x86/ - move everything to arch/x86/ right now.
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 09:06:10PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> No, no, please don't do that. It would make backporting patches
>> for stable kernels a real pain. Moving only the common files
>> is the right way to go for a first cut...
>
> As if the patches come remotely close to applying in the first place.
> The filename patched is the least of the worries.
Actually it's surprising how many patches do apply unchanged.
A massive file rename, *just for the sake of renaming*, would
mean no x86 patches would apply and gain nothing anyway.
-
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