Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932875AbYAaKoU (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:44:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760124AbYAaKoL (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:44:11 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.190]:29879 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752956AbYAaKoJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:44:09 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=nTwLetl6gKyjC3kTxgXzaaXEU9cW1/LsrVllwi1oHpyPf37XQEC8E+2EWD+hOc1B2P0mK1qA8U6gl7WraFQ1x0UNryVCuzkZNP2tKrUeaQExeW+oxaqDnG0YHHVm+fuGwcpL67+2m7DGD8t8bL3XzshZDRXzawrYCHbGzD6t2ds= Subject: Re: about relocs.c on x86 From: Harvey Harrison To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Ingo Molnar , Yinghai Lu , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: <20080131103842.GA550@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <86802c440801310007oe8693c7q177d41a87c27ca7@mail.gmail.com> <20080131095223.GA11867@elte.hu> <1201773740.23523.17.camel@brick> <20080131101111.GB11867@elte.hu> <20080131103842.GA550@uranus.ravnborg.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:44:08 -0800 Message-Id: <1201776248.23523.29.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1881 Lines: 49 On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:38 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > no strong opinion from me - but i think it should be obvious to the > > developer when they are looking at a .c file that it's 32-bit only (or > > 64-bit only). I.e. the default is that whatever .c file we look at is > > unified - and in that sense relocs.c breaks that general expectation. > > I for one would like to see when stuff is 32 bit only and when > shared across 32 and 64 bit. > And this type of info is useful when I do greps so hiding the information > in a Makefiel is then no good. > > It helps your understanding when you get the most correct picture of > where a certain symbol is used - a functionality I often need. > And this is by no menas limited to a narrow x86 view but across > the full kernel. > > So I, and this is no news for Ingo, would like to see what is > solely for 32 bit to be marked as such. Consider me outnumbered then, no worries. > > And we are heading with full speed to the situation for x86 where > the number of foo_32.c, foo_64.c are minimal. > But that said we will likely see a small decrease in speed now. Well, we're doing our best ;-) > > As for the Makefiles - I looked at them last time and only > issue that kept me away for unifying them was that I did > not understand the linking order requirments and I did not see > enough benefit at that time to invest the time to unify them. > Each of the remaining Makefile should be unifyable in less > than 10 steps each. It is just work that are waitng to be done. The continued unification will probably make this obvious over time anyway. Cheers, Harvey -- 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/