Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763635AbXLTWY7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:24:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752316AbXLTWYt (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:24:49 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:44161 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753161AbXLTWYs (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:24:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:24:29 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: LKML , Andi Kleen , Thomas Gleixner , Glauber de Oliveira Costa , Jan Beulich Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: another attempt at x86 pagetable unification Message-ID: <20071220222429.GA28029@elte.hu> References: <20071219223534.129042140@goop.org> <20071220094940.GA14227@elte.hu> <20071220112022.GA15832@elte.hu> <476AD9EA.7010108@goop.org> <20071220213906.GB11897@elte.hu> <476AE7D6.9000600@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <476AE7D6.9000600@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1563 Lines: 31 * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > But byte-for-byte identity isn't (necessarily) possible when actually > unifying. If the same function exists in different forms on 32- and > 64-bit, then unifying requires I pick one of them (or perhaps a new > superset) to use in the unified form. That function may generate > different code compared to the one that it replaced... it's still possible: you can do preparatory patches that bring one architecture in sync with the other one, in small, per function steps. Then the actual unification is still an identity transformation. (and all the preparatory patches are small and bisectable) it's also a lot less frustrating and a lot more enjoyable that way IMO. If it's 50 small patches, then so be it ... 50 patches only take ~2 seconds more for me to apply to x86.git (which time is immediately saved by the vastly improved reviewability and testability of a 50 patches set), so dont worry about any overhead on the maintainers side. And you'll end up moving up on the v2.6.25 contributors top-list on LWN as well ;-) The worst aspect of it is writing up the 50 changelogs (i use pre-created templates for that) and figuring out how to script a patch-bomb to lkml. In every other aspect it's a win-win scenario for everyone involved. 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/