On 09/19/2017 11:29 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Craig Gallek <kraigatg...@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:16:13 -0400 > >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Mack <dan...@zonque.org> wrote: >>> On 09/19/2017 10:55 PM, David Miller wrote: >>>> From: Craig Gallek <kraigatg...@gmail.com> >>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:30:54 -0400 >>>> >>>>> This was previously left as a TODO. Add the implementation and >>>>> extend the test to cover it. >>>> >>>> Series applied, thanks. >>>> >>> >>> Hmm, I think these patches need some more discussion regarding the IM >>> nodes handling, see the reply I sent an hour ago. Could you wait for >>> that before pushing your tree? >> >> I can follow up with a patch to implement your suggestion. It's >> really just an efficiency improvement, though, so I think it's ok to >> handle independently. (Sorry, I haven't had a chance to play with the >> implementation details yet). > > Sorry, I thought the core implementation had been agreed upon and the > series was OK. All that was asked for were simplifications and/or > optimization which could be done via follow-up patches. > > It's already pushed out to my tree, so I would need to do a real > revert. > > I hope that won't be necessary. >
Nah, it's okay I guess. I trust Craig to send follow-up patches. After all, efficiency is what this whole exercise is all about, so I think it should be done correctly :) Thanks, Daniel
