Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261391AbUKSMbS (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:31:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261364AbUKSM3F (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:29:05 -0500 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:45581 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261372AbUKSM2f (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:28:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:28:28 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: Paul Menage Cc: discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [discuss] RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86 Message-ID: <20041119122827.GB22981@stusta.de> References: <20041119005117.GM4943@stusta.de> <6599ad8304111817317880dfe5@mail.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6599ad8304111817317880dfe5@mail.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1910 Lines: 53 On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 05:31:14PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:51:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk 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. We are not talking about thousands of places. We are talking about less than hundred places. And many people do currently get it wrong like with CONFIG_LBD. The most important improvement would be to prevent such bugs and to have the X86_64 dependency explicitely stated. The #ifdef CONFIG_X86 in init/main.c is an example where it currently takes some time to understand whether it's correct or a bug. X86_32 would be a solution, but it would IMHO also create confusion since i386 and ia64 also have some things in common (e.g. ACPI support). The cleanest thing is simply, to state X86_64 dependencies explicitely. > Paul cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - 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/