From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261180AbUKBLBp (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:01:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261185AbUKBLBp (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:01:45 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:28848 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261182AbUKBLBi (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:01:38 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <1099353962.9139.11.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <1099353962.9139.11.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <76b4a884-2c3c-11d9-91a1-0002b3163499@redhat.com> <200411011930.iA1JULKN023227@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> To: john stultz Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , davidm@snapgear.com, lkml , uclinux-dev@uclinux.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] FRV: Make calibrate_delay() optional User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:01:05 +0000 Message-ID: <4832.1099393265@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Just doing a quick skim, the patch looks good. Making a whole new file > for just one function is a bit heavy handed, but I don't feel that code > needed to be in main.c Doing it this way means that we can use the linker's handling of archive libraries to decide whether to actually use this function or not. > My only nit would be to save the tabs and switch the code from: And then it'll be argued that I should switch it back... Different people have different opinions on how this should be arranged (of course, they're wrong if they don't agree with my opinion:-). David