[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090129232728.GD30601@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:27:28 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: x86: unify genapic code, unify subarchitectures, remove old
subarchitecture code
* Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > At this point there's no technical need to kill it - it's a
> > zero-overhead thing tucked away into a single .c module in
> > arch/x86/kernel/numaq_32.c. I even consolidated most of its headers in
> > that file, to reduce its cross section.
>
> Wish we'd have piped up earlier to save you a bit of work.
Well bigsmp wasnt going to go away anytime soon so the de-subarching and
unification work had to be done anyway. NUMAQ came along for the ride ;-)
I've got some more restructuring plans in this area so the time was well
spent in any case.
> We can make the NUMAQ's beep still, if not boot. :)
>
> Reality is they're just not worth the effort any more and there's no
> sign of anybody else having them. Assuming your code goes in for 2.6.30
> it'll be easy to drop NUMAQ support. Even if there's not much downside
> there's also not much reason to leave it in but marked
> deprecated/broken.
Yes, unless there's major stability problems with the x86/apic branch
we'll merge it into v2.6.30. NUMAQ is a single .c module now
(default-disabled) so not much of a concern.
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