On Tuesday 18 April 2006 21:05, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 12:35:22PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
> >...
>
> NAK.
>
> When submitting a patch that is the revert of a patch that went
> into Linus' tree just 8 days ago [1], I'd expect at least:
> - a Cc to the people involved with the patch you are reverting
> - a note that you are reverting a recent patch in your patch
> description
> - an explanation why you disagree with the patch you are reverting
The subject was very clear. i386 options belong into arch/i386.
> If you disagree with a patch, please speak up when it's submitted or
> discuss it after you've seen it in the tree. But don't play such silly
> revert-and-hope-they-don't-notice-I've-reverted-it games.
I moved it because I noticed that my x86-64 configuration files
had this strange new symbol. I also did a grep and no other architecture
other than i386 uses it.
i386 specific hacks belong into arch/i386
-Andi (who actually thinks the whole thing was always a bad idea - saving
a few K but giving up such debugging is a poor trade off)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
