On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 01/14/2011 10:36 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:04 PM, David Ahern<daah...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 01/14/11 13:57, Blue Swirl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That's OK, but the correct fix is to change the design of the machine >>>>>> model to something more advanced where the unwanted objects are simply >>>>>> not linked in, without any changes to board code. This is not so >>>>>> trivial and also many devices are not architecturally clean yet. >>>>> >>>>> A lot of changes are need to obtain that goal, and I am not the right >>>>> person to do them. Until that ideal design can be developed and >>>>> implemented why not take a small patch that fixes the existing design? >>>>> It's not a major change -- a very small one actually (4 files, 13 lines >>>>> modified). >>>> >>>> So far the approach has been to make changes only in line with that >>>> goal. >>> >>> That's a shame. >>> >>> I'll collapse the patch series and maintain it locally then. >> >> Patches 1, 5, 10, and 11 still look fine to me. > > Patch 1 is wrong, please apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/77021/ > instead.
It's in: 0601740a5db12ea7ae0f2f7826f0cfb05854500a.
