[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4761A944.1050503@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:51:00 -0200
From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, glommer@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
ehabkost@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org, avi@...ranet.com,
anthony@...emonkey.ws, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, ak@...e.de, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, zach@...are.com, roland@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] avoid ifdefs in desc.h, getting rid of pack_ldt and pack_tss
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> Well, "no functional changes" is not quite the same thing as "no
>>> object code changes".
>>
>> yeah, true, but the safest way to ensure no functional changes is to
>> get identical object code. In sched-devel.git i include obj
>> comparisons to cleanup patches as a self-assurance (and later bughunt
>> helper) to make sure a cleanup is really just a cleanup.
>
> Of course. "No object code changes" is a stronger statement, however,
> not all types of cleanups result in that.
>
Which is the case here. I wasn't expecting the same object code. Anyway,
the mistake is explained, and I'm about to send the correct version.
Sorry again.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists