On Friday, March 28, 2014 01:23:49 PM WANG Chao wrote:
> On 03/27/14 at 06:32pm, Vivek Goyal wrote:
...
> I was just trying to keep the change as minimal as possible, so that the
> reviewers can be more clear of what the patch does instead of something
> looks messed up.
Sounds very sane. I tried it the other way around:
clean up and then do the functional change
and I ended up in a mess changing back and forth and I had to move on
to other stuff in the end.
> But if you have no problem review it, I can do some
> clean up within this patch. However I think it's better to be addressed
> the cleanup in the future, or at least as a separated patch in this
> series.
Seeing some cleanups, especially getting rid of the duplicate code to get
memory ranges in kdump and kexec case (which I expect still exists?) on top
later would be great.
Thomas
