[PATCH 0/6] UML - Small patches for 2.6.17

[PATCH 0/6] UML - Small patches for 2.6.17

[Jeff Dike]

These patches are 2.6.17 material.  They are small bug fixes and cleanups - 
the one functional change, skas0 support for 2G/2G hosts, is innocuous and 
tested.

				Jeff

Re: [PATCH 0/6] UML - Small patches for 2.6.17

[Andrew Morton]

Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> wrote:
>
> These patches are 2.6.17 material.

"remove NULL checks and add some CodingStyle" isn't.  Unless one considers
UML coding style to be a bug, which is an attractive idea ;)

So I gave that one an extra-special look - I'll push it along, thanks.

Re: [uml-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/6] UML - Small patches for 2.6.17

[Blaisorblade]

On Saturday 29 April 2006 01:55, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> wrote:
> > These patches are 2.6.17 material.
>
> "remove NULL checks and add some CodingStyle" isn't.

Being restrictive is ok, but keeping patches in queues for longer than needed 
creates more headaches than it solves, in my experience.

> Unless one considers 
> UML coding style to be a bug, which is an attractive idea ;)

Well, we're slowly working on that... very slowly... I've thought multiple 
times to at least run Lindent on arch/um but I've not spoken up because of 
all the conflicts we (me and Jeff) would get with patches in our queues.

However, there are occasions in which we get conflicts anyway for other 
reorganization, and in that case Lindent would be useful. Ok Jeff? I'm 
speaking for instance about moving to os-Linux and such.
-- 
Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894)
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade

	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it

Re: [uml-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/6] UML - Small patches for 2.6.17

[Andrew Morton]

Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@yahoo.it> wrote:
>
> > Unless one considers 
>  > UML coding style to be a bug, which is an attractive idea ;)
> 
>  Well, we're slowly working on that... very slowly... I've thought multiple 
>  times to at least run Lindent on arch/um but I've not spoken up because of 
>  all the conflicts we (me and Jeff) would get with patches in our queues.

Lindent doesn't do a terribly good job, and one ends up having to perform a
lot of manual fixups.  Perhaps as many as are presently needed.

Re: [uml-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/6] UML - Small patches for 2.6.17

[Jeff Dike]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:44:30AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Lindent doesn't do a terribly good job, and one ends up having to perform a
> lot of manual fixups.  Perhaps as many as are presently needed.

We are doing style cleanups as code is changed - this is slow, but I
think this is the best way to go, as it is fairly unobtrusive and
doesn't create any merge barriers.

				Jeff