From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/27] score arch files for linux Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 20:19:06 +0200 Message-ID: <200906092019.06812.arnd@arndb.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.188]:63907 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754104AbZFISTt (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:19:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: liqin.chen@sunplusct.com Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org On Tuesday 09 June 2009, liqin.chen@sunplusct.com wrote: > Hi Arnd, Andrew Morton and linus, > > According to your comment on score arch code, > we update score code base on asm-generic#next repository. > use arch microblaze and blackfin as reference. Ok, just finished looking over the patches and I am generally very happy about their quality, it usually takes much longer for a submission of this size to get into a mergeable shape. The only thing that I think needs to be fixed before a 2.6.31 release is my comment about unistd.h still containing the __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_* #defines. I consider that my fault because I did not make it clear enough what those are meant for in asm-generic/unistd.h. One more general thought: I noticed that you split the header files by alphabetical ordering. While there is no good way to split a set of interdependent files, a logical grouping (e.g. ABI, memory management, device, cpu) would be nice. Everything else I found are only polite suggestions of what can still be improved, not issues that I think need to be addressed immediately. I especially love how the work that Remis and I put into the generic header files starts paying off, because it makes reviewing an architecture so much simpler. Please add my 'Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann ' to your patches. Thanks, Arnd <><