Re: [linuxsh-dev] Drop-In tree updates

[Robert L. <rm...@te...>]

On Wed, 2001-12-05 at 18:07, David Woodhouse wrote:

> I disagree. Having a flush_cache_range() function which does _less_ than 
> its name implies is a correctness problem. Having the per-arch ifdefs to 
> optimise away the flushes which aren't necessary, ugly though it may be, it 
> still better than that.

I _want_ per-arch definitions that optimize away the flushes that aren't
needed!  Code should be written for the common denominator, and if arch
X doesn't need Y, then it defines to nothing.

I think that is what you want, too?

> Provide a new function with a name that at least vaguely describes its 
> behaviour - and all will be well. 

I agree here ... its how we handle the per-arch mess I am speaking of.

> >  Nonetheless, we need documentation.  Even more important, the cml2
> > package is not synced to SH at all.  Ie, it won't work.  We need to
> > fix that (or not use cml2 <grin>). 
> 
> Surely we just need to make sure that our stuff is merged first? Then paint 
> it pink :)

I just talked to Marcelo about merging into 2.4 ...

	Robert Love