From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751727AbXCNNgv (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:36:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751375AbXCNNgv (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:36:51 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-05.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.59]:55234 "EHLO ms-smtp-05.nyroc.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751727AbXCNNgu (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:36:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Make common x86 arch area for i386 and x86_64 - Take 2 From: Steven Rostedt To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Chris Wright , Rusty Russell , Glauber de Oliveira Costa In-Reply-To: <20070314130531.GA27498@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20070314050819.536207642@goodmis.org> <1173875708.31159.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070314130531.GA27498@one.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:36:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1173879395.31159.33.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 14:05 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > The thing is others and I (and you) are working on getting paravirt_ops > > working for x86_64. There's a lot of overlap between i386 and x86_64. > > Right now the i386 is ahead of x86_64 and the code seems to be put more > > in the arch/i386 arch. So now we are going to introduce a > > new ../../i386 hack to get to a shared paravirt_shared.c(?). Or do we > > What would you like exactly to share? I'm still working on that. Others have pressured us into consolidating as much usable code for i386 into x86_64. This may turn out not to be too feasible anyway. > > > just continue on keeping the x86_64 as a separate entity, with a lot of > > duplicate code? > > When it makes sense to share the code it can be shared. That is already > done today. But the existing Makefile mechanisms work fine for that. > > Making sense: > - There is actually a lot of shared code > - The supported hardware is the same (remember x86-64 is only for > modern x86 hardware, while i386 has a much longer legacy) > - No ifdefs Thanks, I'll keep this in mind. -- Steve