linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

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: <20120714093032.GA23316@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:30:32 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

Hi!

> > > > With the risk of bikeshedding here, but I find the name awkward. How
> > > > about just naming the arch port arm64 instead? It's considerably more
> > > > descriptive in the context of the kernel.  For reference, we didn't
> > > > name ppc64, nor powerpc, after what the IBM/power.org marketing people
> > > > were currently calling the architecture at the time either.
> > > 
> > > I agree the name sucks, [...]
> > 
> > So why not change it now, when it only bothers a few dozen 
> > people and it is only present in 36 patches? Why go full steam 
> > ahead to annoy thousands of people with it and why spread the 
> > naming madness to thousands of commits?
> 
> Changing the arch/ dir name is easy at this point. My preference is for
> consistency with the official name (that cannot be changed) and the gcc
> triplet. I also don't think it annoys thousands of people, most don't
> really care. The few reactions I've seen is pretty much because people
> were expecting arm64 and it came as something else.

I guess I'm 3/1000 now... Anyway, gcc triplet can be changed, and
official name does not seem to matter.

> > > Agreed. It's clear from the code that it started out as a copy 
> > > of the 32 bit ARM code base, which I think was a mistake, but 
> > > it has also moved on since then and many areas of the 64 bit 
> > > code are now much cleaner because they don't have to worry 
> > > about breaking legacy code. We're also more flexible with 
> > > trying out stuff without having to worry about breaking some 
> > > 10 year old board code.
> > 
> > Just for the record, you guys are repeating all the same 
> > arguments that led to the x86_64 fork a decade ago...
> 
> As I stated already, comparing AArch64 to x86_64 is not right. So even
> if the arguments may look the same, the context is *different*. AArch64
> is *not* an extension to the AArch32 mode.

Is it possible to boot 32-bit OS on aarch64 machine?

IOW, is it compatible in supervisor mode, too?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/