From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/22] arm: introduce little endian bitops Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:07:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20101018150737.GI12449@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1287135981-17604-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> <20101018135616.GB12449@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201010181645.13349.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201010181645.13349.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Akinobu Mita , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 04:45:12PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Note that patches 20 and 22 of the series completely eliminate the > the minix and ext2 definitions, putting them into architecture independent > code in those two file systems where they belong. Good. > Adding the new definitions in patch 4 is just a logical step before removing > the old definitions in the later patches while maintaining bisectability. In which case I don't have a problem with the series. > > What I'm trying to say is please don't make the existing mess of bitops > > any worse than it currently is. > > The series currently adds 20 lines to the arm code (could be reduced to > 6 lines), but removes 26 lines which are essentially architecture > independent and shouldn't be there to start with. I'd call that the > opposite of making the mess worse. Right - if I could've seen the rest of the series, then maybe I'd have known that. However, I seemed to have silently dropped off linux-arch back in April and only just noticed, which means I've missed rather a lot... From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:07:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 04/22] arm: introduce little endian bitops In-Reply-To: <201010181645.13349.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1287135981-17604-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> <20101018135616.GB12449@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201010181645.13349.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20101018150737.GI12449@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 04:45:12PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Note that patches 20 and 22 of the series completely eliminate the > the minix and ext2 definitions, putting them into architecture independent > code in those two file systems where they belong. Good. > Adding the new definitions in patch 4 is just a logical step before removing > the old definitions in the later patches while maintaining bisectability. In which case I don't have a problem with the series. > > What I'm trying to say is please don't make the existing mess of bitops > > any worse than it currently is. > > The series currently adds 20 lines to the arm code (could be reduced to > 6 lines), but removes 26 lines which are essentially architecture > independent and shouldn't be there to start with. I'd call that the > opposite of making the mess worse. Right - if I could've seen the rest of the series, then maybe I'd have known that. However, I seemed to have silently dropped off linux-arch back in April and only just noticed, which means I've missed rather a lot...