I wouldn't call that mild. There are some aesthetic problems with the
patch, but it has a very nice common layout which means that we can do
many of the "generic" optimizations in architecture-independent files.
For example, all the architecture-dependent files used to have to do the
same thing over and over again when it came to constant expression
compile-time removal etc.
> First of all it I think it is a total mess and secondly I am very
> annoyed that it removes our nice architecture optimizations. Could you
> please reverse it until it has been done the right way.
I'd suggest you look it over a bit more.
It has all the architecture optimizations _and_ it allows them to be
expressed a lot more clearly.
> Instead of putting in gigantic files with 22 byte long file-names, which
> will not work on good old Minix v1 filesystems - yes some people still
> use those for Linux - it would be better to keep the names below 14
> chars and there is absolutely no reason to use such long filenames.
The filenames I agree about - I considered renaming them but decided that
it didn't matter.
> Second, instead of keeping these gigantic files of swap functions and
> defines and then let the architetures overwrite these it would be much
> cleaner to provide a library of generic functions (in fact this would be
> very small, only 3 in fact, 16, 32 and 64 bit swaps) and then let
> asm/byteorder use these if there are no optimized ones.
Look at the patch a bit more before you start complaining.
Linus