[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1201773740.23523.17.camel@brick>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:02:20 -0800
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: about relocs.c on x86
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:52 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > why not rename relocs.c to relocs_32.c?
> >
> > it is only used for 32 bit, even it is host app.
>
> during the big first phase of unification we generally kept file names
> untouched if they were only present in one of the previous
> architectures. I.e. pure 32-bit and pure 64-bit files were not renamed
> to _32/_64.
>
> Now that we've got lots of unified 32/64-bit files it might make sense
> to rename the 'standalone' ones into _32/_64 if they share the same
> directory with 32/64-bit source files - to reduce the confusion. And
> given that for example arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c is unified while
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/relocs.c is 32-bit only, i'd agree with your
> observation. Feel free to send a rename patch for such cases.
I'd argue that eliminating the _32/_64 suffixes through unification and
not adding any more would be better. Renaming at this point seems like
the wrong side of the cost/benefit line. When the makefiles finally get
unified, that would be a natural list of what is 32 bit-only and what
is 64 bit-only, and additional suffixes wouldn't add much to that.
Just another voice,
Harvey
--
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