From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cast removal Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:12:59 -0700 Message-ID: <20061004211259.8274db49.akpm@osdl.org> References: <200610042356.03348.len.brown@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:48278 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750751AbWJEENg (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:13:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200610042356.03348.len.brown@intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: Len Brown , Jan Engelhardt , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI List On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:56:02 -0400 Len Brown wrote: > I'm okay applying this patch it touches the linux-specific > drivers/acpi/* files only, no ACPICA files. Why? Would it help if it was split into two? How do mortals distinguish ACPICA files from Linux files? > But I don't know if Linus will want changes like this post -rc1. > It might be a pain to have in the tree all the way to 2.6.20 opens b/c > it is sure to cause merge conflicts Should be OK - the acpi tree is very slow-changing at present. Or did you have big changes planned? Or I can maintain it externally along with the 10-20 other acpi patches I seem to be regularly stuck with (hint ;) > -- and at the end of the day > the benefit of this patch is what? A few less characters in the source... > yes, cleanups are a pain, and we do a lot of them. And we merge just about all of them. But I think it's best in the long run; and we are in this for the long run.