On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > each simplification could be submitted as > > a separate arch-specific patch, as many things are. > > > > i was more asking about the *philosophy* of that patch, > > The justification of this initial patch is more obvious if followed > up by those subsequent patches which make use of the initial one.
no, it's not. i should be able to ask about the *feasibility* of a possible simplifying patch without having to provide an actual example of its application. if someone can't immediately see what i'm trying to do given the previously-posted patch, then they shouldn't be commenting on it one way or the other. i'm not going to go to the trouble of creating and submitting all possible follow-up patches, only to have someone higher up the food chain "NAK" the whole idea on philosophical grounds. either you can see what i'm talking about or you can't. rday p.s. there is already ample predecent for what i'm asking here. one can submit a patch to add, say, a simplifying macro to kernel.h without simultaneously submitting patches for everywhere it possibly might be used. -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - 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/
