Re: serious performance regression due to NX patch

[Andi Kleen]

Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 03:02:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Apropos of nothing much, CONFIG_X86 would be preferreed here, but x86_64
>> defines that too.
>
> IMO, x86-64 should stop defining CONFIG_X86.  It's far more common
> to say "X86 && !X86_64" than it is to say X86.  How about defining
> CONFIG_X86_COMMON and migrating usage of X86 to X86_COMMON?

Definitely not in 2.6 because it has far too much potential to 
add subtle bugs, and that is not appropiate for a stable release. 
In 2.7 maybe.

Buy I would prefer to just add an truly i386 specific define 
like Andrew proposed.

-Andi

-
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/