From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261731AbVEBTg6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 15:36:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261732AbVEBTg6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 15:36:58 -0400 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:62644 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261731AbVEBTgq (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2005 15:36:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 12:36:09 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Andi Kleen 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 Message-Id: <20050502123609.19f18124.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050502191159.GI27150@muc.de> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60049EED02@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> <20050502171551.GG27150@muc.de> <20050502113125.19320ceb.akpm@osdl.org> <20050502191159.GI27150@muc.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:31:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Andi Kleen 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 ;)