On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 06:58:49PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
> 
> >>The basic point is "let's proceed with caution, and test test test 
> >>before applying this patch."
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Please state clearly what you have in mind. First you were
> >saying you didn't like pci_sort_by_bus_slot_func defined when
> >CONFIG_PCI_SORT_BY_BUS_SLOT_FUNC wass not set. Now you were
> >saying my patch was dangerous. Please make up your mind.
> >  
> >
> 
> In my first reply, I clearly separated implementation issues from 
> commentary on the overall idea.  Aside from that, I don't see much value 
> in further repeating what I've already said.
> 

Here is an alternative patch, which won't define pci_sort_by_bus_slot_func
if CONFIG_PCI_SORT_BY_BUS_SLOT_FUNC is not set.


H.J.