Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

2007-12-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> yes, our include file dependencies are a jungle, the differences between >>> 32-bit and 64-bit are arbitrary in 80% of the cases, but still there's no >>> reason why th

Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

2007-12-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> here the problem is apparently caused by your patch, a careless >> 'unification' of include file sections. 32-bit had this: > > Point is this patches do unification, but they are not just that, as > you can see. I am attempting to cleanu

Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

2007-12-18 Thread Glauber de Oliveira Costa
Ingo Molnar wrote: * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: yes, our include file dependencies are a jungle, the differences between 32-bit and 64-bit are arbitrary in 80% of the cases, but still there's no reason why this couldnt be done correctly. The patch below is a quick bandaid that add

Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

2007-12-18 Thread Glauber de Oliveira Costa
Ingo Molnar wrote: * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note that there's much less h

Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

2007-12-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yes, our include file dependencies are a jungle, the differences > between 32-bit and 64-bit are arbitrary in 80% of the cases, but still > there's no reason why this couldnt be done correctly. The patch below > is a quick bandaid that adds the missin

Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

2007-12-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly > > integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are > > moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are > > deleted. Note that there's much less heade

[PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

2007-12-17 Thread Glauber de Oliveira Costa
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note that there's much less headers included in the final version. Signed-off-by: Glauber de O