Re: i386-arch-cleanup-seralize-msr-fix.patch added to -mm tree
From: Zachary Amsden (zach_at_vmware.com)
Date: 07/31/05
- Previous message: Jean Delvare: "[PATCH 2.6] (8/11) hwmon vs i2c, second round"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:54:12 -0700 To: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
akpm@osdl.org wrote:
>The patch titled
>
> i386-arch-cleanup-seralize-msr fix
>
>diff -puN arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c~i386-arch-cleanup-seralize-msr-fix arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c
>--- 25/arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c~i386-arch-cleanup-seralize-msr-fix 2005-07-30 23:40:17.000000000 -0700
>+++ 25-akpm/arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c 2005-07-30 23:40:34.000000000 -0700
>@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@
> #include <asm/msr.h>
> #include <asm/uaccess.h>
> #include <asm/processor.h>
>+#include <asm/processor.h>
>
Sorry to break something yet again. Looks like a duplicate include got
inserted here. Actually this last fix brings up a very valid point.
There is now sharing in both directions between i386 and x86_64 (I was
only aware that early_printk.c was shared from the x86_64 tree). There
is still a lot more code that could be shared; in particular, one can
only imagine how many apic and io-apic bugs have been caused or are
still lurking because of lack of shared code (*). A lot of these code
cleanups I submitted could be utilized by x86_64 as well, and if we
continue to move machine specific inline assembler into header files and
out of the arch directory, there is a lot more chance to share code -
even across entirely different architectures, as eventually happened to
much of irq.c.
Is it worthwhile considering some more explicit way of sharing code
between i386 and x86_64? I don't like breaking builds for one or the
other because I changed a file that I did not know was shared, and it is
not always possible to personally test both builds from every location I
might be at. I think moving x86_64 as a sub-arch of i386 is rather far
too radical, for now, but perhaps there is a better solution
(arch/i386/x86_64-shared/) to make code sharing explicit so that
developers are always thinking about these issues when changing code here.
Zach
(*) It is quite likely the APIC / IO-APIC code would require a minimal
set of #ifdefs to be shared, because code must deal with different board
features and vendors, but the ugliness of a couple of #ifdefs combined
with strategic creation of machine specific abstractions via header
files could likely win huge savings by increasing the number of people
testing and debugging common code.
-
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/
- Previous message: Jean Delvare: "[PATCH 2.6] (8/11) hwmon vs i2c, second round"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
