Re: [PATCH(s)][RFC] variable size and signedness issues in ldt.c - potential problem?

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:51:40 +0100 (CET) Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> wrote:

| 
| 
| On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| 
| > On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:20:23 +0100 (CET) Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> wrote:
| >
| > |
| > | On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
| > |
| > | > Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> wrote:
| > | > >
| > | > > After creating the initial cleanup patch I've noticed several more
| > | > > instances of this 'bad style'. If there's any interrest in cleaning them
| > | > > up I'll be happy to create a patch.  Is this wanted?
| > | >
| > | > I'd say that this and the whitespace adjustments are far too trivial to be
| > | > raising patches at this time.
| > | >
| > | You are right, it /is/ trivial - I'll leave it alone for now.  Maybe later
| > | create a patch that does a more thorough cleanup and send it to the
| > | trivial patch monkey.
| > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| > Or I can put it into the KJ patchset and just never send it onward.
| > That will at least get it some usage time.
| >
| > BTW, if you want to stick with trivial_Rusty, that's OK with me too.
| > Rusty does a fine job and I'm not trying to compete with him.
| >
| 
| How about I create the patch (in a few days, I'm a little short on time),
| then send it to Rusty's trivial and CC you ?
| Then you can do with it what you please.

Sure, however you want to handle it.

--
~Randy
MOTD:  Always include version info.