From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3E7C3F2C6 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 03:26:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08F621D56 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 03:26:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727364AbgCAD0j (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:26:39 -0500 Received: from kvm5.telegraphics.com.au ([98.124.60.144]:60088 "EHLO kvm5.telegraphics.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727242AbgCAD0j (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:26:39 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by kvm5.telegraphics.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE882A28D; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:26:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2020 14:26:33 +1100 (AEDT) From: Finn Thain To: afzal mohammed cc: linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg Ungerer , Thomas Gleixner , Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq() In-Reply-To: <20200301010511.GA5195@afzalpc> Message-ID: References: <00b0bf964278dd0bb3e093283994399ff796cca5.1582471508.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com> <20200229131553.GA4985@afzalpc> <20200301010511.GA5195@afzalpc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 1 Mar 2020, afzal mohammed wrote: > On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 10:11:51AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, afzal mohammed wrote: > > > > [...] > > > Specific to m68k, following changes has been made based on m68 family > > > ;) feedback, > > > > > > > None of my comments were specific to any architecture. > > One thing i had in my background, but realize now that didn't express > anywhere in my mails, in essence what Geert mentioned, i.e. being legacy > code, i did not give a treatment that would have been given to adding > new code. > > But m68k subthread has been a very lively one and as not many changes, > felt it was not fair from my side not to handle almost as though it is a > new code addition. > I took Geert's comments to be architecture agnostic but perhaps I misunderstood. BTW, how do you distinguish between "new code" and "legacy code"? And why would you choose to do that when you are writing a tree-wide semantic patch?