From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764845AbXGLRbx (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:31:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753653AbXGLRbp (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:31:45 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:45611 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751644AbXGLRbo (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:31:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:30:56 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , andi@firstfloor.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised Message-Id: <20070712103056.52126a96.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <1184181538674-git-send-email-hpa@zytor.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-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 On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > > This patch set replaces the x86 setup code, which is currently all in > > assembly, with a version written in C, using the ".code16gcc" feature > > of binutils (which has been present since at least 2001.) > > > > 76 files changed, 4606 insertions(+), 5209 deletions(-) > > I can't really argue against this on any sane grounds - not only is it > removing more lines than it adds, but moving from mostly unreadable > assembly to C seems a good idea. > > How does this impact the size of that code? Do we even care? > > But as to how to integrate it, I'm not sure I really want to just merge > it. I suspect we would want to have it in some public tree that people > actually test at least to some degree first, and the -mm tree seems to > make most sense. > > I didn't see anything objectionable in the series, although I do think the > explanations need to be re-done for a number of them. You seem to have > violated the "a single line to explain the patch at the top" rule, and as > a result they make no sense for some of them (the explanation for patch > 05/33 doesn't parse for me and 07/33 seems to have the single-line > problem) > > So let's just get this merged. But the question is, do we put it in > 2.6.23-rc1, or do we put it in -mm for a few weeks, which would imply > waiting for the next merge window? Andrew? > This code has been in -mm since 11 May, as git-newsetup.patch. It has caused (for what it is) astonishingly few problems. Maybe a couple of build glitches and one runtime failure, all quickly fixed. I'd say it's ready.