[PATCH 0/6] Arm64: (mostly) SVE adjustments

[Jan Beulich]

On 09.05.2024 16:17, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18/03/2024 08:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I'm aware of aarch64 being the "arch identifier". I'm not alone though in
>> preferring Arm64 in textual uses - see Linux sources for a prominent
>> example.
> 
> This isn't about personal preferences, though, it's about the port name; 
> and that's aarch64.
> 
> There are good technical reasons for not using arm or anything with that 
> in the name in that this is an entirely separate identifier.  There are 
> many configure scripts out there that match arm* (or even, in some 
> cases, arm6* which was a very early implementation of the Arm 32-bit 
> architecture).  Having a distinct name really helps with avoiding 
> problems stemming from that.
> 
> Mixing aarch64 and arm64 in commit tags also makes it more difficult to 
> identify patches relating to the port (and also adds false matches for 
> those searching for the 32-bit arm port).
> 
> Anyway, please can you use the official tag name in commits in future.

I'll try to keep that in mind, sure.

> PS: I'd point out that the x86 port is not called 'intel' either, 
> perhaps for similar reasons.

I find this comparison odd: There are various x86 parts from other vendors.
x86-64 wasn't even "invented" by Intel.

Jan