linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux

To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
Subject: Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:50:08 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <02a701c34f81$4f32ca50$10eca8c0@grendel>
Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:

> >  Any justifiable reason for getting rid of arch/mips64?
> 
> In my opinion, it should never have existed.  The vast majority
> of MIPS-specific kernel code can be identical for 32-bit and 64-bit
> versions of the architecture.  Creating arch/mips64 (as opposed
> to arch/mips/mips64 or Ralf's arch/mips/mm-64) caused duplication 
> of modules that then needed to be maintained in parallel - but which 
> often were not.

 Well, duplication is certainly undesireable, but is it the result of
separate arch/mips and arch/mips64 trees or is it a side effect only? 
These separate trees have an advantage of a clear distinction between
these architectures.  And arch/sparc vs arch/sparc64 were the first case
of such a split and they seem to feel quite well. 

 I'd rather keep arch/mips/{lib,mm} and arch/mips64/{lib,mm} where they
used to be and add, say, arch/mips/{lib,mm}-generic for common stuff. 

-- 
+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+        e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available        +


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>