From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754041Ab2GINrx (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:47:53 -0400 Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:55341 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753975Ab2GINrv (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:47:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:51:26 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Catalin Marinas Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port Message-ID: <20120709145126.313d1574@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120709113558.GE8052@arm.com> References: <1341608777-12982-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20120706235804.1bd26a1a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20120707231456.GA21201@arm.com> <20120708002920.4f55c737@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20120709113558.GE8052@arm.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > These are the same reasons the x86_64 people gave and regretted later. > > I would not compare the x86_64 extension to the AArch64 architecture. It's not an architecture specific observation. I was just observing that you were following a pattern which in all other cases ended up with a merged tree. Now it could be your tree is different, it could be that the right approach in all these cases is actually to do a new tree and merge five years later - I don't know. It's your (aarch64 folks) project at the end of the day and you who have to keep all the fixes and errata and whatnot in sync between the two trees and I don't personally care too much which way it happens. Alan