From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756138AbZA2Gka (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:40:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751651AbZA2GkV (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:40:21 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:57373 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750988AbZA2GkU (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:40:20 -0500 Message-ID: <49814E89.6090802@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:36:57 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge CC: Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: unify asm/io.h: IO_SPACE_LIMIT References: <4980ED5F.30904@goop.org> In-Reply-To: <4980ED5F.30904@goop.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jeremy, I applied patch #1 to tip:x86/cleanups, however, patch #2 and #3 are identical... did you mean to do something different here? Furthermore, please provide an actual description (and preferrably an Impact: line) with your patches. In particular, when unifying code that is identical between 32 and 64 bits, please specify this in the description (e.g. "unified functions X and Y which were already identical between 32 and 64 bits"), so we know why there isn't a preceeding patch to remove the remaining differences. Thanks, -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.