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]

Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:39:33 -0300
From:	"Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <glommer@...il.com>
To:	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...l.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Chris Wright" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86

On 7/20/07, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> > I really like the idea of a unified source tree for the 2 x86 variants.
> > The technical differences are really small (of course there are
> > differences, especially in the boot sequence), and striving to unify as
> > much as possible while having a clean way to do per 32/64 bit parts as
> > well is something that imo is the right thing.
> >
>
> Not to mention all the paravirt stuff that's going on. Having a single
> x86 arch to work with would be greatly beneficial to the work being done
> to port paravirt to x86_64.

As for paravirt, it'd really help. As I had the tree lagged behind by
so much, a great part of the work now is checking where i386 is,
seeing if it applies for 64-bit, and so on. The differences are not so
huge, and I'm trying my best to not let them deviate too much. It
could mostly be built incrementally.

And I bet a huge part of the tree could be like this too: In most
places, they are different for no particular reason, just because two
people implemented it separately. There'd be a huge effort to bring
those differences into an end, but I think I'd pay in future
development speed. (not to mention the duplicate bugs linus have
already talked about)

> Way to go, Thomas and Ingo!
I am pretty much for it too.

-- 
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
-
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/