From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-in-01.arcor-online.net (mail-in-01.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.arcor.de", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A721CDDF25 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:18:28 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20070424.110456.124867547.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20070424223245.78f4fdfb.sfr@canb.auug_.org.au> <20070424.110456.124867547.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Start split out of common open firmware code Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:18:21 +0200 To: David Miller Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I totally disagree that you should be changing anything > during these consolidations. And I didn't say so, I actually *said* I don't think that should be done. I was just remarking some really bad workarounds end up in more generic code now, and as such need to be fixed. Not now, but *later*. > Move the code around in one pass where you can _VERIFY_ > that things are precisely the same and won't break. > > Then later you can get fancy and change things however you > wish. Yes exactly. > Everything so far is pure whining, and has nothing to do with > the substance of what Stephen is trying to accomplish, a > _CODE CONSOLIDATION_. So please don't get in the way of that > effort. I'm not standing in the way here, I'm quite happy with what Stephen is doing, great job. I'm just pointing out some bugs/workarounds in the merged code (that were there before, sure) -- it would be lovely if they at least could be commented as being not-quite-right in the new code so no one reading the code will assume it is doing the "right thing". Segher