[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.22.394.2003011337590.15@nippy.intranet>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2020 14:26:33 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To: afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>
cc: linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()
On Sun, 1 Mar 2020, afzal mohammed wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 10:11:51AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, afzal mohammed wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > > Specific to m68k, following changes has been made based on m68 family
> > > ;) feedback,
> > >
> >
> > None of my comments were specific to any architecture.
>
> One thing i had in my background, but realize now that didn't express
> anywhere in my mails, in essence what Geert mentioned, i.e. being legacy
> code, i did not give a treatment that would have been given to adding
> new code.
>
> But m68k subthread has been a very lively one and as not many changes,
> felt it was not fair from my side not to handle almost as though it is a
> new code addition.
>
I took Geert's comments to be architecture agnostic but perhaps I
misunderstood.
BTW, how do you distinguish between "new code" and "legacy code"?
And why would you choose to do that when you are writing a tree-wide
semantic patch?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists