linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Subject: Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:14:02 +0200
Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030721172805.13489C-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <02a701c34f81$4f32ca50$10eca8c0@grendel> <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030721172805.13489C-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:50:08PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

>  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. 

Technically these are probably equivalent.  I just felt having mm-32 and
mm-64 makes it more explicit that something can't be shared but really,
that's just directory names and I don't feel strong about them.
I even have some hope that with continuing cleanup mm-32 and mm-64, which
are supposed to contain only things that due to conflicts can't live in
mm, will finally become empty.

  Ralf

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