From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932658AbYEGWOJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 18:14:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755653AbYEGWNt (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 18:13:49 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:55150 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755640AbYEGWNr (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 18:13:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 00:14:35 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Adrian Bunk , Yinghai Lu , Rene Herman , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel , hpa@zytor.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: 2.6.26, PAT and AMD family 6 Message-ID: <20080507221435.GH18516@elf.ucw.cz> References: <48210A71.1060409@keyaccess.nl> <86802c440805061939q39ff5500h3c9e229ecbc6b2e6@mail.gmail.com> <20080507124650.GD29935@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080507212343.GB14951@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > This feature and detection code is hard to clean up and definitely out > > > of the scope of this patch. > > > > Did you even look at the commit we are discussing? > > > > It ***adds*** exactly the same code at three different places. > > Yes, I did. And it adds it for a fscking good reason. > > 1) two times in common.c due to the existing detection logic mess > 2) once in the 64 bit version WTF? The code can happily live in a function. No need to add two copies to single file. If you need to share function between 32 and 64 bit, just put it to separate .c file. > > fall into his own trap by patching only one copy of his duplicated code. > > That's not a real good reason to yell at him. Actually no, that's not a good reason to yell at _him_. But it is _perfectly valid_ reason to yell at whoever commited that to x86 tree, given that: 1) it has empty changelog (come on, "review" a patch and not notice that changelog is empty?!) 2) HPA said it was bad idea 3) copy&paste code remained in the patch Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html