On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> > Any justifiable reason for getting rid of arch/mips64?
>
> In my opinion, it should never have existed. The vast majority
> of MIPS-specific kernel code can be identical for 32-bit and 64-bit
> versions of the architecture. Creating arch/mips64 (as opposed
> to arch/mips/mips64 or Ralf's arch/mips/mm-64) caused duplication
> of modules that then needed to be maintained in parallel - but which
> often were not.
Well, duplication is certainly undesireable, but is it the result of
separate arch/mips and arch/mips64 trees or is it a side effect only?
These separate trees have an advantage of a clear distinction between
these architectures. And arch/sparc vs arch/sparc64 were the first case
of such a split and they seem to feel quite well.
I'd rather keep arch/mips/{lib,mm} and arch/mips64/{lib,mm} where they
used to be and add, say, arch/mips/{lib,mm}-generic for common stuff.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
