Re: [PATCH v5] x86: UV uv_tlb.c cleanup

[Ingo Molnar]

* Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Don't the kfree()s get changed - i.e. the patch has a side-effect?
> >
> > And yes, while this might be a kmem leak fix, it is a fix and a *SIDE EFFECT*
> > which i explicitly asked to be queued in a separate patch(es) from the large
> > cleanup patch ...
> >
> > The cleanup patch should be a cleanup of existing code - even if that code has
> > bugs. Nothing more. Bug fixes are for different patches.
> 
> There's also renames in the patch that make it pretty hard to review
> for correctness. Formatting changes are best done as separate patches.

Well, yeah, but there were so many cleanliness problems with that code that i 
think we are better off with having this big cleanup over and then start 
working with small, self-contained cleanups and improvements.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/