On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:54:29 +0200 Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/06/2010 08:29 AM, Neil Brown wrote: > > I've taken the opportunity to substantially re-write that code. > > > > > > It's better to have two patches, one a backportable one liner that fixes > the bug, the other, on top, that cleans up the code but has no sematic > changes. > > This makes it substantially easier to review. When considering the > first patch you see the change plainly. When reviewing the second patch > you make sure no semantic changes were made at all. > Good advice, I agree. However the conversation seem have drifted towards viewing the new macro definition as the bug, and the pre-increment in an argument as a valid thing to do. In that case, there is no bug to fix, just a code clean up required. So I'm currently planning on just submitting that cleanup in the next merge window, and leaving the rcu guys to 'fix' the macro. Thanks, NeilBrown -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
