[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080507221435.GH18516@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 00:14:35 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.26, PAT and AMD family 6
Hi!
> > > This feature and detection code is hard to clean up and definitely out
> > > of the scope of this patch.
> >
> > Did you even look at the commit we are discussing?
> >
> > It ***adds*** exactly the same code at three different places.
>
> Yes, I did. And it adds it for a fscking good reason.
>
> 1) two times in common.c due to the existing detection logic mess
> 2) once in the 64 bit version
WTF? The code can happily live in a function. No need to add two
copies to single file. If you need to share function between 32 and 64
bit, just put it to separate .c file.
> > fall into his own trap by patching only one copy of his duplicated code.
>
> That's not a real good reason to yell at him.
Actually no, that's not a good reason to yell at _him_. But it is
_perfectly valid_ reason to yell at whoever commited that to x86 tree,
given that:
1) it has empty changelog (come on, "review" a patch and not notice
that changelog is empty?!)
2) HPA said it was bad idea
3) copy&paste code remained in the patch
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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