From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761380AbYD0MOY (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:14:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754926AbYD0MOQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:14:16 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:56281 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754735AbYD0MOQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:14:16 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:13:57 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: airlied@gmail.com, steve@xemacs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING Message-ID: <20080427121357.GA9305@elte.hu> References: <20080426.230807.144232984.davem@davemloft.net> <21d7e9970804270216rcaf2462v4ee6f34cf9f9aa45@mail.gmail.com> <20080427.022130.193697611.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080427.022130.193697611.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Miller wrote: > From: "Dave Airlie" > Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:16:31 +1000 > > > just because something lands in the core kernel tree doesn't mean it > > is actually perfect, far from it.. > > This is entirely missing the point. > > We get patches reviewed before they hit the tree, not afterwards. > > Ingo is making that impossible. hrmpf. David, i can only repeat that what you say is plain out false. The CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING patch was posted to lkml originally, about two months ago: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/3/122 then it was re-posted at the time of the pull request as well: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/911104?page=last and i just posted a (trivial) RFC patch to lkml today that would turn it into a generic feature: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/27/47 so i'm not sure what this big fuss is about ... Moving this (now apparently hotly desired!) feature from arch/x86/Kconfig to init/Kconfig is no big deal and lets continue with more important issues. No puppies got hurt, really :) You can use the patch i posted or you've got my conceptual Acked-by for touching arch/x86/Kconfig or can do it without asking - i dont mind -, it's an obviously correct change that i not only wanted all along but also implemented that way originally (twice!), until stupid lkml objections forced it into arch/x86 as i went the path of least resistance. Yes, in hindsight, i should have stood up for that change and should have made a stink about it on linux-arch but there's just so many flamewars that fit into a day ;-) Ingo