On 01/14/2011 10:36 PM, 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.
Patch 1 is wrong, please apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/77021/
instead.
Paolo
