On Jan 18, 2008 8:02 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > but in exchange you broke all of 32-bit with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y. > > > Which means you did not even build-test it on 32-bit, let alone boot > > > test it... > > > > Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking > > working configurations? If the developement is going to be this > > chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can > > stabilize. > > what you see is a open feedback cycle conducted on lkml. People send > patches for arch/x86, and we tell them if it breaks something. The bug > was found before i pushed out the x86.git devel tree (and the fix is > below - but this shouldnt matter to you because the bug never hit a > public x86.git tree). > > Ingo > Other than this, it seems to build and boot fine.
Do you want me to resend ? -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
