On 01/14/11 14:36, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:04 PM, David Ahern <daah...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 01/14/11 13:57, Blue Swirl wrote: >>>>> That's OK, but the correct fix is to change the design of the machine >>>>> model to something more advanced where the unwanted objects are simply >>>>> not linked in, without any changes to board code. This is not so >>>>> trivial and also many devices are not architecturally clean yet. >>>> >>>> A lot of changes are need to obtain that goal, and I am not the right >>>> person to do them. Until that ideal design can be developed and >>>> implemented why not take a small patch that fixes the existing design? >>>> It's not a major change -- a very small one actually (4 files, 13 lines >>>> modified). >>> >>> So far the approach has been to make changes only in line with that goal. >> >> That's a shame. >> >> I'll collapse the patch series and maintain it locally then. > > Patches 1, 5, 10, and 11 still look fine to me.
Fine by me. The more you take, the less I have to carry locally. Sounds like patch 1 should be Stefan's patch since it pre-dates what I sent. David
