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 Return-Path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:40743 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754207Ab0JRPHv (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:07:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:07:37 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/22] arm: introduce little endian bitops 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201010181645.13349.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 Message-ID: <20101018150737.pVLzO8awZxFfuk7fQmjlqd7_Z9PbvINDUlvk9j-y1UQ@z> 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...