From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751520AbXACAXo (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:23:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751592AbXACAXo (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:23:44 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:53933 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751520AbXACAXn (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:23:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200701030057.08957.m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl> References: <200701021238.36297.m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl> <1220f3e52f791ff8871ca9328b027a5a@kernel.crashing.org> <200701030057.08957.m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc: vio of_node_put cleanup Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 01:24:04 +0100 To: Mariusz Kozlowski X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> The comment used to be inside the "if" block, is this >> change correct? > > You'd prefer an empty line in there? Obviously, you should change the comment to include the conditional, if that is what is needed. >> [And, do we want all these changes anyway? I don't care >> either way, both sides have their pros and their cons -- >> just asking :-) ] > > You know my opinion already :-) Heh. Ok, I'll rephrase: is there _consensus_ that this is a good thing :-) [But never mind, I looked it up, and it is *documented* as being supported, so fine with me]. Segher