Re: serious performance regression due to NX patch

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 03:38:44PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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.

We already had an i386 specific define.  You chose to hijack it.

-- 
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon 
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince 
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep 
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain
-
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/