Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 15/21] [PATCH] remove legacy stuff from processor_64.h
    • From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 16/21] [PATCH] unify mm_segment_t definition
    • From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 17/21] [PATCH] move definitions to processor.h
    • From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 18/21] [PATCH] unify prefetch operations
    • From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 20/21] [PATCH] move i387 definitions to processor.h
    • From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration
    • From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration
    • From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Option to disable AMD C1E (allows dynticks to work)
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 21/21] [PATCH] finish processor.h integration
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 13/21] [PATCH] change bitwise operations to get a void parameter.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]