Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Of course, practically zero is not zero, so we could do this in a > follow-up patch if we wanted to take a more conservative approach. > (Carlos has a series in progress which would conflict with such a > patch - but the conflict resolution would be simple). > ... > Let me know if you would like that follow-up patch. Nah, I think good enough is good enough. Not worth spending more braincycles on it. Unless you absolutely do not have anything better to do, that is ;-) If somebody really finds the "practically zero" solution disturbing, they can do a follow-up after the dust settles, of course.
