On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 16:37 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:

> OK, that sounds a little complicated. I'm just worried about having lots
> workarounds in the unflattening code, the code's hard enough to read as
> it is. 

Yeah that's a good argument.

> I think it's preferable to do the workarounds in the code that
> needs the workaround, that way they're isolated in certain parts of the
> code rather than all in the unflattening.

I'd really prefer to have these nodes vanish from the complete node
chain so we don't have the workarounds cluttering up the rather high
levels with machine dependent code. I'll find a better place to put it.

johannes