From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765034AbXGLRZP (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:25:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753076AbXGLRZE (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:25:04 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:54442 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753071AbXGLRZB (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:25:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:24:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: "H. Peter Anvin" cc: andi@firstfloor.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised In-Reply-To: <1184181538674-git-send-email-hpa@zytor.com> Message-ID: References: <1184181538674-git-send-email-hpa@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? Linus