View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mreff555 Apprentice


Joined: 10 Mar 2011 Posts: 231 Location: Philadelphia
|
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:28 pm Post subject: o x86_64 directory? |
|
|
What does it mean when a compiled kernel doesn't have the arch/x86_64 directory. I realize the bzImage fill is generally just a symblic link to the /arch/x86 directory tree, but I just wondered if there was any specific reason why this tree isn't generated? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
NeddySeagoon Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003 Posts: 55015 Location: 56N 3W
|
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mreff555,
Once upon a time, there mere separate source trees for arch/i386 and arch/x86_64.
Over the years, these trees merged into arch/x86. The merge was completed around 2.6.26. At that time arch/i386 and arch/x86_64 both became symlinks to arch/x86, so old habits still worked.
I suppose that Linus has dropped the symlinks. _________________ Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mreff555 Apprentice


Joined: 10 Mar 2011 Posts: 231 Location: Philadelphia
|
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. I figured it was something like that. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|