> That's *exactly* what the patches do (except it's called "arch/x86", which > is clearly the best option - please don't use "ia" _anywhere_ except for > "ia64", since that's the only architecture that is really "intel > architecture").
And i860 @) > > On the downside, it's more ../../.. type stuff. On the upside, > > they're more cleanly separated and it's apparent what's going on. > > Seems nicer to me than drivers/ and kernel/ for stuff that's > > really arch specific, but shared between two arches. > > Absolutely. I'm agreeing violently. I just suspect not a lot of people > really looked at the patches.. Well I just see a lot of pain from these patches but I doubt they will avoid any bugs. If people don't compile test both archs they will always likely break on another. There are lots of subtle dependencies that are not expressed in the pathname even after this intrusive operation (e.g. in the includes). That's just how it is. If the architecture merging was ever done it would be likely by extending arch/x86_64 to support (modern) 32bit. But this change doesn't bring us any step closer to that goal. I think it's just aesthetics -- i'm all for aesthetics but only if it gives better software and doesn't impact other people who want to get something real done; neither of this is the case here. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
