[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071218154319.GA11369@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:43:19 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
Cc: 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,
hpa@...or.com, zach@...are.com, roland@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com> wrote:
>> here the problem is apparently caused by your patch, a careless
>> 'unification' of include file sections. 32-bit had this:
>
> Point is this patches do unification, but they are not just that, as
> you can see. I am attempting to cleanup headers that appears not to be
> used, [...]
do cleanups and unification in _separate_ patches. We do not want to
change a SINGLE LINE OF SOURCE CODE in a patch that says "unify" and
moves a block of code from one file to another, ok? If you see some
obvious cleanups do it in pre or post patches (whichever looks more
logical). That makes it totally bisectable and i can drop the bogus
cleanup patch instead of having to drop a full unification patch.
Ingo
--
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