On 10/27/2014 01:36 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> You're repeating yourself. Care to read the discussion about this from
> the last round of review again?

OK, so here's a rewritten decoder.  I think it's a lot more robust and
probably fixes a bug or two.  This ends up saving ~70 lines of code out
of ~300 or so for the old patch.

I'll include this in the next series, but I'm posting it early and often
to make sure I'm on the right track.

There is also a preparatory patch or two, but they're small.