From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Cc: venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, racing.guo@intel.com,
luming.yu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]porting lockless mce from x86_64 to i386
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 12:36:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050502123609.19f18124.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050502191159.GI27150@muc.de>
Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:31:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Doing it either way should be OK with this mce code. But I feel,
> > > > despite of the patch size, it is better to keep all the shared
> > > > code in i386 tree and link it from x86-64. Otherwise, it may become
> > > > kind of messy in future, with various links between i386 and x86-64.
> > >
> > > i386 already uses code from x86-64 (earlyprintk.c) - it is nothing
> > > new.
> >
> > I must say I don't like the bidirectional sharing either.
>
> Why exactly?
One reason is that it makes it harder to locate the code. I ctag each of
my architecture trees only with stuff from ./arch/that-architecture to reduce
duplicate hits. So I end up with some x86 functions being unlocatable in
the x86 tree. We end up with both x86_64 and x86 being broken in this
regard.
But that's a relatively minor point. The major point is that it gives me
the creeps in hard-to-define ways ;)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-02 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-02 16:15 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2005-05-02 17:15 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-02 18:31 ` Andrew Morton
2005-05-02 19:11 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-02 19:36 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2005-05-05 15:14 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-05-03 16:16 ` Bill Davidsen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-05-02 1:01 Guo, Racing
2005-05-02 16:10 ` Andi Kleen
2005-04-29 16:42 Yu, Luming
[not found] <200504261327.30928.luming.yu@intel.com>
2005-04-27 12:38 ` Andi Kleen
2005-04-27 18:38 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-29 15:27 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050502123609.19f18124.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luming.yu@intel.com \
--cc=racing.guo@intel.com \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®