[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707201546140.27249@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some arch/i386
> > > stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
> >
> > we can leave those few items in arch/x86 just as much. No need to keep
> > around a legacy tree for that.
>
> By extension it makes doing that sort of thing, in general, more difficult.
> Which is IMO not desirable.
I think it's *much* harder to carry legacy things around in an old tree
that almost nobody even uses any more (probably not true yet, but for most
of the main developers, I bet it will be true in a year). Especially one
that just duplicates 99% of the stuff.
There really isn't that much legacy crud. There are things like random
quirks, but every time I hear the (theoretical) argument about how much
time and effort we save by having it duplicated somewhere else, I think
about all the time we definitely waste by fixing the same bug twice (and
worry about the cases where we don't).
Linus
-
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