On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 01:53:16 -0700
Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 02:30:00PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > and I'd really change the function argument to take that kind of
> > simplified thing instead.
> > 
> > And that cleanup/re-organization would be prime material for a totally
> > independent patch that changes no semantics at all, just prepares for
> > the other changes.
> > 
> > That way the final "patch 2" would be smaller and do the semantic
> > changes, instead of being a mix of semantic changes and infrastructure
> > changes.
> > 
> > And some of the cleanup stuff I could merge for 3.0 just to make things easier.
> > 
> > Hmm?
> 
> Here is a cleaned up patch that just adds functionality to kernel/resource.c
> It does make a small semantic addition to allocate_resource(), where it reallocates
> the resource with a newer size if that resource was already allocated.
> 
> Will this be acceptable for 3.0.0?

Up to Linus, I have no problem with the patch though, it seems like a
good cleanup and is good to keep separate from the other patches.  Once
it lands I can queue up the dependent patches in -next.

Thanks,
-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center