On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 13:13 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Will Schmidt writes: > > > I still need to test this code for performance issues, and this version > > could still use some cosmetic touchups, so I dont think we want this to > > go into a tree yet. I am reposting this primarily to indicate the prior > > version isnt quite right, and so Jon can rebase to this version. :-) > > The way we scan the ibm,processor-segment-sizes property could be > nicer. Where there any other cosmetic touchups you were thinking of, > and if so what were they? I didn't notice any leftover debugging > printks or anything else that obviously needed cleaning up.
Correct.. nothing in the patch really *needs* to be cleaned up. This is mostly me being way more nit-picky than I need to be. :-) I don't have any real issues with the patch (being candidate for) going into a tree. The only obvious is the MMU_SEGSIZE_* #define's in mmu-hash64.h appear to be duplicated. The rest I can follow up on later, none of it affects the code outside of #ifdef DEBUG's and it should be a separate patch anyway. Thanks, -Will > Paul. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
