On Feb 10, 2008 4:17 AM, Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 12:56 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2008 5:56 AM, Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 11:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > i think the worst is over already and i'm reasonably sure that there are > > > > no more bugs in it - this _is_ a 1:1 patch after all, so in theory the > > > > worst side-effect should be build breakages due to include file > > > > spaghetti. The window for this particular breakage was just 256 commits, > > > > that's OK i think. > > > > > > Except for the breakage of all nommu architectures .. they need the > > > pgtable_t as well due to the pte_fn_t type. > > > > so why wasnt this in the original patch ? why do no-mmu arches have > > to add the pgtable_t typedefs themselves ? > > I do cross-compiles for some architectures but not all. None of the > nommu architectures are covered (I should change that). I actually did > cross compile m68knommu for the first versions of the patch, that didn't > went to well because of the standard m68k compiler. The pte_fn_t change > has been added after the test compile for m68knommu. This is how is > slipped through my fingers. The problem wasn't noticed either while the > patch has been aging in Andrews -mm tree.
i guess my point was more: the pgtable_t typdef is new therefore it must be defined for every architecture. your ability to directly cross-compile and/or test a subset is great, but posting a change that is know for a fact to break arches you didnt update seems like a bad idea. even if you just included the obvious-but-not-compile-tested changes and included the [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias instead would have been better than nothing -mike -- 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/
