David, Thank you for your patch. It was a good example to answer my question.
But about the patch itself, I see that you are commented the code for radix_tree_empty(...). In my patch I renamed it and it only usage instead, so I'm sure it's calling the same code. I don't know the expected compatibility with the kernel function implementation... But without knowing the specific code for neither the nvidia driver nor the kernel, I think the rename is safer... Best regards, Natanael On 6 August 2016 at 04:50, David Haller <gen...@dhaller.de> wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, 05 Aug 2016, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Natanael Olaiz <nol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I know that. But the patch should be applied *only* for versions of > kernels > >> 4.7+. So, I'm asking how is the policy for that. > > > >If you're asking for policy: The Gentoo packaging policy is not to do > >conditional patching. Instead, modify the patch so that the resulting > >code works for both cases. This can generally be accomplished via > >pre-processor macros. > > My patch does it like that. See > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/ > baa36d14d8cdbf58404267ee2ffd34ea > Just dumping the attached patch into > /etc/portage/patches/x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-367.35/ > (and making it readable for the portage user) is sufficient. > > HTH, > -dnh > > -- > Every feature is a bug, unless it can be turned off. -- Karl Heuer
