Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

[Dennis Gilmore <dennis@ausil.us>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8, Size: 2558 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

El Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:10:18 +0100
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> escribió:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:10:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > On Saturday 07 July 2012, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > > > ARM introduced AArch64 as part of the ARMv8 architecture
> > > > 
> > > > With the risk of bikeshedding here, but I find the name
> > > > awkward. How about just naming the arch port arm64 instead?
> > > > It's considerably more descriptive in the context of the
> > > > kernel.  For reference, we didn't name ppc64, nor powerpc,
> > > > after what the IBM/power.org marketing people were currently
> > > > calling the architecture at the time either.
> > > 
> > > I agree the name sucks, [...]
> > 
> > So why not change it now, when it only bothers a few dozen 
> > people and it is only present in 36 patches? Why go full steam 
> > ahead to annoy thousands of people with it and why spread the 
> > naming madness to thousands of commits?
> 
> Changing the arch/ dir name is easy at this point. My preference is
> for consistency with the official name (that cannot be changed) and
> the gcc triplet. I also don't think it annoys thousands of people,
> most don't really care. The few reactions I've seen is pretty much
> because people were expecting arm64 and it came as something else.
> 
> But I'll make a decision on this before the next version of the
> series.
> 
> > > [...] This also includes the rpm and dpkg architecture names, 
> > > and the string returned by the uname syscall. If everything 
> > > else is aarch64, we should use that in the kernel directory 
> > > too, but if everyone calls it arm64 anyway, we should probably 
> > > use that name for as many things as possible.
> > 
> > Yeah.
> 
> What are Red Hat's plans for the AArh64 rpm architecture name?

the rpm arch will be the output of uname -m

As i've said previously I personally prefer arm64 I think it will be
better for users but they will learn if it ends up being aarch64.


if uname -m is arm64 we will have foo-1.1-1.arm64.rpm 
if uname -m ends up as aarch64 we will have foo-1.1-1.aarch64.rpm

Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk/8XewACgkQkSxm47BaWfe/xwCgqq9ctMj9VG6zruJtmLDzrRZM
Ew8AoJRACBzQCLHLkoSveQ+2XoIrw1rY
=e8W0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥