From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S939002AbXGUCkA (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:40:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S936159AbXGUCjm (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:39:42 -0400 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.190]:7640 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935608AbXGUCjl (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:39:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=lNmSLkJ+9sb1aF5nrtj/ATP3BZscH/ZpSC2MCUkzytj62iXhYubQkwrgbiAySFiMY/w99mHMCFM4mSErJJ+2gMfR1r3Z0M4HphDGWxgpmVc9Mce9Pi90oHIQ6MF+JZgodI4eY6GQGsPuHhRBTcWTQx/0EzpUv1fKgXT8UTmOK9Y= Message-ID: <5d6222a80707201939s6e5a088br1d6ada9088e9a939@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:39:33 -0300 From: "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" To: "Steven Rostedt" Subject: Re: [RFC, Announce] Unified x86 architecture, arch/x86 Cc: "Thomas Gleixner" , LKML , "Linus Torvalds" , "Andrew Morton" , "Andi Kleen" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Chris Wright" , arjan@linux.intel.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1184970779.4012.38.camel@chaos> <1184972499.2692.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/20/07, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > I really like the idea of a unified source tree for the 2 x86 variants. > > The technical differences are really small (of course there are > > differences, especially in the boot sequence), and striving to unify as > > much as possible while having a clean way to do per 32/64 bit parts as > > well is something that imo is the right thing. > > > > Not to mention all the paravirt stuff that's going on. Having a single > x86 arch to work with would be greatly beneficial to the work being done > to port paravirt to x86_64. As for paravirt, it'd really help. As I had the tree lagged behind by so much, a great part of the work now is checking where i386 is, seeing if it applies for 64-bit, and so on. The differences are not so huge, and I'm trying my best to not let them deviate too much. It could mostly be built incrementally. And I bet a huge part of the tree could be like this too: In most places, they are different for no particular reason, just because two people implemented it separately. There'd be a huge effort to bring those differences into an end, but I think I'd pay in future development speed. (not to mention the duplicate bugs linus have already talked about) > Way to go, Thomas and Ingo! I am pretty much for it too. -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."