Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:26:14 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       apw@shadowen.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error
Message-ID: <20060515192614.GA24887@elte.hu>
References: <20060515005637.00b54560.akpm@osdl.org> <200605152037.54242.ak@suse.de> <1147719901.6623.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200605152111.20693.ak@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200605152111.20693.ak@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1208
Lines: 28


* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:

> > x86 is a legacy architecture now anyway, right? ;)
> I wish everybody would agree on that @)

as far as i'm concerned x86 is obsolete: my main devel and testboxes are 
64-bit throughout, and i develop for 64-bit by default.

Nevertheless for hard-to-debug bugs i prefer if they can be reproduced 
and debugged on 32-bit too, because x86_64 debugging is still quite a 
PITA and wastes alot of time: for example it has no support for exact 
kernel stacktraces. Also, the printout of the backtrace is butt-ugly and 
as un-ergonomic to the human eye as it gets - who came up with that 
"two-maybe-one function entries per-line" nonsense? [Whoever did it he 
never had to look at (and make sense of) hundreds of stacktraces in a 
row.]

Also, the majority of kernel bugs still get reported on 32-bit and most 
of the testers are on 32-bit. So x86_64 is nice but it still needs some 
work, mainly in terms of debuggability.

	Ingo
-
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/