On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 01:21:43PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >CONFIG_LBD and CONFIG_LSF are spread into asm/types.h for no particularly > >good reason. Centralising the definition in linux/types.h means that arch > >maintainers don't need to bother adding it, as well as fixing the problem > >with x86-64 users being asked to make a decision that has absolutely no > >effect. The H8/300 porters seem particularly confused since I'm not aware > >of any microcontrollers that need to support 2TB filesystems these days. > > > >Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Doesn't look like 2.6.19-rc1 material to me... > > The only apparently "problem" has no real effect, according to you.
Huh? It adds LBD/LSF support to a bunch of architectures that haven't noticed that they needed to do anything. It stops annoying X86_64 users with a question that has no effect. It reduces memory consumption for the h8/300 port. It's been submitted before. I had thought it was in a tree that Linus had pulled, but upon reviewing the diff, found out it was one of the patches that got left out. It was even in -mm for a while, but got chucked out due to rejects. Why are you opposed to it going in after -rc1? This seems like the ideal time to make this kind of change -- the mad merge rush is over and patches which touch a lot of files and have a high probability of causing rejects should go in at this point, IMO. See also the discussion around the pt_regs removal from interrupt handlers. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
