[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080312070419.GA18216@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:04:19 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: mpparse_{32,64}.c merge questions
* Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> wrote:
> > we dont, but please do _not_ "redesign" anything during unification.
> >
> > try to keep it simple and bisectable. Lots of small patches. Stupid
> > #ifdefs if need to be. Pick the 32-bit version or the 64-bit version
> > of any approach, if it's obvious that the unified version will still
> > work fine. Ask if in doubt.
>
> I agree with Ingo on the "keep it simple" merge steps..
>
> I can't resist mentioning, however, what I'd like to see long term.
>
> I'd like to see mpparse.o depend on CONFIG_MPS=y
> I'd like to be able to build CONFIG_ACPI=y and CONFIG_MPS=n
>
> Andy Grover prototyped splititing MPS from ACPI a while back, but it
> never made it upstream.
sure and agreed. And this absolutely has to happen in a separate
patchset. Unification is done best by not changing much and by delaying
any difficult change to as late in the unification effort as possible.
(thus any non-trivial change, if it breaks things and has to be
reverted, wont pull another 100 "easy" changes with itself)
Ingo
--
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