* Olof Johansson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:59:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > This patch doesn't seem right - current 2.6.11 has: > > > > return cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC; > > The patch was against what Greg had already pushed into the > linux-release.bkbits.net 2.6.11 tree, i.e. not what's in mainline. > You're right, your revised patch would apply against mainline. > > However: This patch shouldn't go to mainline, since > ppc-ppc64-abstract-cpu_feature-checks.patch in your tree takes care of > the problem. I'd like the abstraction/cleanup patch to be merged upstream > instead of the #ifdef hack once the tree opens up.
Olof's patch is in the linux-release tree, so this brings up a point regarding merging. If the quick fix is to be replaced by a better fix later (as in this case) there's some room for merge conflict. Does this pose a problem for either -mm or Linus' tree? thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - 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/
