Re: [git pull] generic bitops, take 2

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 07:22:22PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > i've added Alexander's patch that does the cleanup suggested by you
> > 
> > Well.. Not really:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/um/Kconfig.x86_64 b/arch/um/Kconfig.x86_64
> > > index 3fbe69e..7a75043 100644
> > > --- a/arch/um/Kconfig.x86_64
> > > +++ b/arch/um/Kconfig.x86_64
> > > @@ -27,6 +27,14 @@ config SMP_BROKEN
> > >  	bool
> > >  	default y
> > >  
> > > +config GENERIC_FIND_FIRST_BIT
> > > +	bool
> > > +	default y
> > > +
> > > +config GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT
> > > +	bool
> > > +	default y
> > > +
> > 
> > It still declares this GENERIC_FIND_*_BIT thing separately for UM.
> > 
> > Yes, that may _work_, but it's wrong to define it in two different places. 
> > 
> > It also makes me wonder why Kconfig.i386 can just include 
> > arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu, but x86_64 cannot?
> 
> hm, indeed arch/um/Kconfig.i386 is assymetric to Kconfig.x86_64. Jeff 
> Cc:-ed.

I may be able to explain why..
Before the x68 merge we had an arch/i386/Kconfig.cpu but we did
not have any arch/x86_64/Kconfig.cpu.
When we merged i386 and x86_64 we included the 64 bit stuff in
arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu and thus it became used by both 32bit and 64bit
x86. But during this process we did not do the proper unification
of um - so here we live with the old style.
Blame the one who did the Kconfig unification..

I would assume um should do similar unifaction and get rid of the
i386/x86_64 split (bot I have not looked at doing it).

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/