From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751319AbWGKVaG (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:30:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751323AbWGKVaG (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:30:06 -0400 Received: from mx.pathscale.com ([64.160.42.68]:52629 "EHLO mx.pathscale.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751319AbWGKVaC (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:30:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add memcpy_cachebypass, a copy routine that tries to keep cache pressure down From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" To: David Miller Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <20060711.135729.104381402.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20060711.135729.104381402.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:30:01 -0700 Message-Id: <1152653401.16499.35.camel@chalcedony.pathscale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 13:57 -0700, David Miller wrote: > Please don't use a weak attribute, and instead use the same > "__HAVE_ARCH_FOO" cpp test scheme used for the other string > operations to allow a platform to override the default > implementation in lib/string.x I'm a bit confused. The last time I tried submitting a patch that followed that style (for __iowrite_copy*), it got NAKed for propagating preprocessor abuse (Linus roundly flamed someone for a similar patch a few weeks before I submitted mine), and Andrew suggested that I use the same scheme that this patch uses. So whose instructions do I follow? Yours of today, or Andrew's and Linus's of a few months ago?