From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-82613-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 3854 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2011 19:33:05 -0000
Received: (qmail 3844 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2011 19:33:04 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:32:48 +0000
Received: (qmail 15717 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2011 19:32:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 25 Jul 2011 19:32:48 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][patch] Make DCACHE_LINE runtime-settable
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:49:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
References: <20110722222025.ED9B6190B14@elbrus2.mtv.corp.google.com> <201107252021.39702.pedro@codesourcery.com> <m3ei1erwll.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3ei1erwll.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201107252032.42059.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00708.txt.bz2

On Monday 25 July 2011 20:25:42, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
> >> +/* BLOCK_FUNC routine for dcache_free.  */
> >> +
> >> +static void
> >> +free_block (struct dcache_block *block, void *param)
> >> +{
> >> +  free (block);
> 
> Pedro> xfree.
> 
> This one is just moving code from one spot to another.
> I don't mind it if Paul wants to fix it, but I think as a rule we
> shouldn't "review the context" and make patch submitters fix nits which
> already appear in the source.

Yes, agreed.  I just hadn't noticed the function was just being moved.

Paul, if you want to fix that one, it's preaproved, either as
preparatory patch, or as followup.

-- 
Pedro Alves