On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:50:08PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> 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.
Technically these are probably equivalent. I just felt having mm-32 and
mm-64 makes it more explicit that something can't be shared but really,
that's just directory names and I don't feel strong about them.
I even have some hope that with continuing cleanup mm-32 and mm-64, which
are supposed to contain only things that due to conflicts can't live in
mm, will finally become empty.
Ralf
