Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933530AbaJUSAv (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:00:51 -0400 Received: from mx2.comprocs.com ([12.186.155.30]:63429 "HELO mx2.compro.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933399AbaJUSAt (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:00:49 -0400 X-BYPSHEADER: 3526281 X-SMScore: -200 Message-ID: <54469F4C.9070703@compro.net> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:00:44 -0400 From: Mark Hounschell Reply-To: markh@compro.net Organization: Compro Computer Svcs. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH , Joe Perches CC: devel , Lidza Louina , DaeSeok Youn , driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: dgap: re-arrange functions for removing forward declarations. References: <20141013023425.GA15452@devel> <20141013032544.GA26646@kroah.com> <1413212198.1287.9.camel@joe-AO725> <1441864556.1190074.1413252337243.JavaMail.root@mx2.compro.net> <1480715134.1194532.1413288717130.JavaMail.root@mx2.compro.net> In-Reply-To: <1480715134.1194532.1413288717130.JavaMail.root@mx2.compro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/14/2014 08:01 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote: > On 10/13/2014 10:04 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:56:38AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 17:01 +0900, DaeSeok Youn wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> 2014-10-13 12:25 GMT+09:00 Greg KH : >>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:34:25AM +0900, Daeseok Youn wrote: >>>>>> Re-arrange the functions for removing forward declarations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daeseok Youn >>>>>> --- >>>>>> This patch has too many changes for re-arranging the functions. >>>>>> So I wonder that I should break this up into smaller patches. >>>>> >>>>> Are the .o files identical before and after this patch? If so, it's >>>>> fine. >>>> Ok. I will check for that. >>> >>> The .o files shouldn't be identical after function reordering. >> >> Hm, they might be the same size, but I can see how on some >> architectures (like ppc) how that would not be the case, you are right. >> >> Isn't there an "objdiff" program or something like that which might help >> in validating that nothing "changed" in the source for type of patch >> that just moves functions around in a file. >> >> thanks, >> > > Greg, > > Would just testing the thing be of any help? > > Regards > Mark I don't know what is going on with this patch, but for what it's worth, I have applied this patch and my testing still shows everything OK. Tested-by: Mark Hounschell Regards Mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/