Re: [PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Friday, May 23, 2008 - 10:25 am

On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:23:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:


Don't think so.  Unrelated changes are well-known poor-form.

I do think that if one is already changing a line which is incorrectly
laid out then there's no point in _leaving_ it incorrect.  There's no
downside to fixing it.

That being said, it's often sorely tempting to go hunting down nearby
sillinesses.  I succumb to that temptation and usually won't complain
when others do also, up to a point.


mm, not really.  Wrong is wrong and if nominal maintainer insists on
retaining wrong we have cheery bunfights about it.


I think those changes went above and beyond the call.


And that is why we have a standard - so that different parts of the
kernel do not end up having different appearance due to local
preferences.

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel, Alan Cox, (Thu May 22, 1:22 pm)
Re: [PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu May 22, 6:03 pm)
Re: [PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel, Alan Cox, (Fri May 23, 4:06 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel, Kevin Winchester, (Fri May 23, 4:36 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel, Stephen Rothwell, (Fri May 23, 6:23 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel, Andrew Morton, (Fri May 23, 10:25 am)
Re: [RFC] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel, Kevin Winchester, (Sat May 24, 11:59 am)