From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965257AbXCNNeS (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:34:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933910AbXCNNeS (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:34:18 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.56]:59404 "EHLO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933905AbXCNNeR (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:34:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Make common x86 arch area for i386 and x86_64 - Take 2 From: Steven Rostedt To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Chris Wright , Rusty Russell , Glauber de Oliveira Costa In-Reply-To: <20070314125330.GA13168@elte.hu> References: <20070314050819.536207642@goodmis.org> <20070314125330.GA13168@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:33:30 -0400 Message-Id: <1173879210.31159.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 13:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Steven Rostedt writes: > > > > > > So I spent last night hacking up something to try to make a common > > > ground for all code that is shared between x86_64 and i386. I > > > called this > > > > > > arch/x86 > > > > NACK. I think the current ways work just fine. > > i agree. We've recently factored out quite a bit of common code between > i386 and x86_64 recently: genirq, gtod/clocksource and clockevents. But those are things that can mostly be shared across all archs. > > and that's how i think unification of architectures should be done: move > code into kernel/* and drivers/*, _not_ into another architecture. That > way all architectures benefit. > I'm OK with it, although I did waste a lot of effort making those patches (But I speak better in C than in English, or any other verbal language, so it wasn't that bad). But if you look at the code that was merged, I'm not sure many other archs will benefit. How many archs use mtrr's? Perhaps these still can go into the drivers directory with a bit of work. Don't know, I'm not that close to that code to be sure, and don't have the time to find out ATM. But at least there needs to be a more common way to share files between the two archs. Having a file with just a single line of: #include "../../i386/kernel/mycommoncode.c" is not that elegant. The make files are, perhaps, a bit better. Another thing that happens a lot with these shared funcs in these files, is finding them . Since "make TAGS" doesn't bother to check i386 when run with ARCH=x86_64. The first time I searched for early_printk while developing i386 took me an hour, since my search scripts don't check other archs (I've changed that since). I thought that the function was one of these macro created functions, and was non-arch specific (didn't look into arch). So, when creating new shared code, what's the "proper" way? -- Steve