Message-ID: <6599ad8304111817317880dfe5@mail.google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:31:14 -0800
From: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Reply-To: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Subject: Re: [discuss] RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86
Cc: discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20041119005117.GM4943@stusta.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <20041119005117.GM4943@stusta.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 931
Lines: 26

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:51:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> I'd like to send a patch after 2.6.10 that removes the following from
> arch/x86_64/Kconfig:
> 
>   config X86
>         bool
>         default y
> 
> Additionally, I'll also check all current X86 uses to prevent breakages.
> 

Or, you could define an X86_32 config symbol in i386. This seems a
little more backward compatible, and means that you can continue to
just test X86 for the rather large set of code that works fine on both
32-bit and 64-bit.

I guess it depends on whether you think there are more places in the
generic code that the two architectures share code, vs places that are
32-bit only.

Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/