On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 01/10/14 01:11, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On the substance.
> I'm certainly not trying to antagonise you here - I assumed you were
> *suggesting* to apply those comments directly ?
> Which is why I updated the sent patches with your comments - since they
> seemed more descriptive anyway - and sent back to the list.
That part is fine. What really annoyed me is the patch:
Subject: [PATCH] x86: Call identify_cpu() unconditionally once remove other
callsites
which is a complete fail in all aspects. You should be able to figure
that out yourself easily:
Read the reviews of "[PATCH 1/3] x86: Bugfix bit-rot in the calling of
legacy_cache_size" again carefully. Then look at your patch, the
subject line and the changelog. It should be pretty obvious.
Thanks,
tglx
On 01/10/14 09:57, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> On 01/10/14 01:11, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On the substance.
>> I'm certainly not trying to antagonise you here - I assumed you were
>> *suggesting* to apply those comments directly ?
>> Which is why I updated the sent patches with your comments - since they
>> seemed more descriptive anyway - and sent back to the list.
>
> That part is fine. What really annoyed me is the patch:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] x86: Call identify_cpu() unconditionally once remove other
> callsites
>
> which is a complete fail in all aspects. You should be able to figure
> that out yourself easily:
>
> Read the reviews of "[PATCH 1/3] x86: Bugfix bit-rot in the calling of
> legacy_cache_size" again carefully. Then look at your patch, the
> subject line and the changelog. It should be pretty obvious.
OK - I'll read again.
Thanks for the reviews