linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86

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: <1185008549.6344.43.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:02:29 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	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 Sat, 2007-07-21 at 10:15 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 07:37 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: 
> > On Saturday 21 July 2007 00:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some
> > > time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like
> > > to solicit feedback about it.
> > 
> > Well you know my position on this. I think it's a bad idea because
> > it means we can never get rid of any old junk. IMNSHO arch/x86_64
> > is significantly cleaner and simpler in many ways than arch/i386 and I would
> > like to preserve that. Also in general arch/x86_64 is much easier to hack
> > than arch/i386 because it's easier to regression test and in general
> > has to care about much less junk. And I don't 
> > know of any way to ever fix that for i386 besides splitting the old
> > stuff off completely.
> 
> I disagree of course. 
> 
> I worked on both trees quite intensive over the last years and I broke
> x86_64 more than once when hacking on i386 and vice versa. 

Me too.

At the very least I'd like to see asm-x86/ for headers used by both.

That said, the merge is exactly as I'd have done it.  So if this were a
democracy, I'd vote in favour.

Cheers,
Rusty.

-
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/