From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933220AbXGTXFI (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:05:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752815AbXGTXE4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:04:56 -0400 Received: from [192.102.209.1] ([192.102.209.1]:46823 "EHLO laptopd505.fenrus.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752715AbXGTXEz (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:04:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , Chris Wright , Steven Rostedt In-Reply-To: <1184970779.4012.38.camel@chaos> References: <1184970779.4012.38.camel@chaos> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:01:39 -0700 Message-Id: <1184972499.2692.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-1.fc7) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 00:32 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > We are pleased to announce a project we've been working on for some > time: the unified x86 architecture tree, or "arch/x86" - and we'd like > to solicit feedback about it. I really like the idea of a unified source tree for the 2 x86 variants. The technical differences are really small (of course there are differences, especially in the boot sequence), and striving to unify as much as possible while having a clean way to do per 32/64 bit parts as well is something that imo is the right thing. I'm more than happy to help with this effort, and have people in my group at Intel help test and engineer this as well. The technical approach of first moving (in an automated way) everything into one directory, and then merge pieces one by one is appealing since it can be done incrementally and carefully, while testing the "can we do separate bits" from the start. So in short, way to go, I hope we can get this thing done as soon as possible. Heck it looks like the infrastructure (not the unification) can make it into 2.6.23 merge window still, so that the entire 2.6.23 window can be used to develop merged-functionality pieces... Greetings, Arjan van de Ven