From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756543Ab2GJRTN (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:19:13 -0400 Received: from mail.ausil.us ([74.119.218.133]:41041 "EHLO mail.ausil.us" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756526Ab2GJRTM (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:19:12 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1547 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:19:12 EDT Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:52:55 -0500 From: Dennis Gilmore To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , Russell King , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port Message-ID: <20120710115255.3a85e0b2@adria.ausil.us> In-Reply-To: <20120710101018.GE15120@arm.com> References: <1341608777-12982-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <201207071927.13135.arnd@arndb.de> <20120710071023.GA10456@gmail.com> <20120710101018.GE15120@arm.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by nfs id q6AHJKbf024953 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 El Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:10:18 +0100 Catalin Marinas escribió: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:10:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Saturday 07 July 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > > ARM introduced AArch64 as part of the ARMv8 architecture > > > > > > > > With the risk of bikeshedding here, but I find the name > > > > awkward. How about just naming the arch port arm64 instead? > > > > It's considerably more descriptive in the context of the > > > > kernel. For reference, we didn't name ppc64, nor powerpc, > > > > after what the IBM/power.org marketing people were currently > > > > calling the architecture at the time either. > > > > > > I agree the name sucks, [...] > > > > So why not change it now, when it only bothers a few dozen > > people and it is only present in 36 patches? Why go full steam > > ahead to annoy thousands of people with it and why spread the > > naming madness to thousands of commits? > > Changing the arch/ dir name is easy at this point. My preference is > for consistency with the official name (that cannot be changed) and > the gcc triplet. I also don't think it annoys thousands of people, > most don't really care. The few reactions I've seen is pretty much > because people were expecting arm64 and it came as something else. > > But I'll make a decision on this before the next version of the > series. > > > > [...] This also includes the rpm and dpkg architecture names, > > > and the string returned by the uname syscall. If everything > > > else is aarch64, we should use that in the kernel directory > > > too, but if everyone calls it arm64 anyway, we should probably > > > use that name for as many things as possible. > > > > Yeah. > > What are Red Hat's plans for the AArh64 rpm architecture name? the rpm arch will be the output of uname -m As i've said previously I personally prefer arm64 I think it will be better for users but they will learn if it ends up being aarch64. if uname -m is arm64 we will have foo-1.1-1.arm64.rpm if uname -m ends up as aarch64 we will have foo-1.1-1.aarch64.rpm Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/8XewACgkQkSxm47BaWfe/xwCgqq9ctMj9VG6zruJtmLDzrRZM Ew8AoJRACBzQCLHLkoSveQ+2XoIrw1rY =e8W0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- {.n++%ݶw{.n+{G{ayʇڙ,jfhz_(階ݢj"mG?&~iOzv^m ?I