Messages in this thread | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] [6/6] i386: Move CONFIG_DOUBLEFAULT into arch/i386 where it belongs. | Date | Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:12:13 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 21:05, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 12:35:22PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> > >... > > NAK. > > When submitting a patch that is the revert of a patch that went > into Linus' tree just 8 days ago [1], I'd expect at least: > - a Cc to the people involved with the patch you are reverting > - a note that you are reverting a recent patch in your patch > description > - an explanation why you disagree with the patch you are reverting
The subject was very clear. i386 options belong into arch/i386.
> If you disagree with a patch, please speak up when it's submitted or > discuss it after you've seen it in the tree. But don't play such silly > revert-and-hope-they-don't-notice-I've-reverted-it games.
I moved it because I noticed that my x86-64 configuration files had this strange new symbol. I also did a grep and no other architecture other than i386 uses it.
i386 specific hacks belong into arch/i386
-Andi (who actually thinks the whole thing was always a bad idea - saving a few K but giving up such debugging is a poor trade off) - 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/
| |