James Bottomley wrote:
> Let me do it.
>
> These are the two patches, tested and working on Voyager.
>
> The order of application is
>
> i386-common-smp.patch
> i386-fix-voyager-build.patch
>
Yep, looks fine to me. The only difference from the ones I just posted
appears to be a little bit of w
James Bottomley wrote:
> Seriously, though, although I tolerate voyager breakage through the
> merge window, I actively try to clean it up and have a working voyager
> for the next release. There's no real excuse for not fixing build
> breakage. How it's done, I don't really care. The only block
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 15:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 23:58:09 +0200
> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > OK, but only if you don't want to put "i386: move common parts of smp
> > > into their own file" in front of it, and remove the duplicated code. I
> >
Andrew Morton wrote:
> This is getting comical.
>
> According to my records, the patch
> voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch _is_ Jeremy's patch.
> James forwarded it.
>
> I take it from your statement that we should merge some Jeremy-patch other
> than this Jeremy-patch?
>
> If "ye
On Mon, 14 May 2007 23:58:09 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OK, but only if you don't want to put "i386: move common parts of smp
> > into their own file" in front of it, and remove the duplicated code. I
> > could send you a third copy if you like.
>
> Using Jeremy's patch i
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 15:00 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Well, let's get the build fix in place first and then we can feed
> > the cleanup in later on, in a more leisurely fashion?
> >
>
> If you like. Are all the Voyager users standing outside your office
> wit
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Well, let's get the build fix in place first and then we can feed
> the cleanup in later on, in a more leisurely fashion?
>
If you like. Are all the Voyager users standing outside your office
with pitchforks, demanding satisfaction?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list
> OK, but only if you don't want to put "i386: move common parts of smp
> into their own file" in front of it, and remove the duplicated code. I
> could send you a third copy if you like.
Using Jeremy's patch is better than James'
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscrib
On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:10:23 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK, thanks. I hereby propose that I send the below
> > (voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch) to Linus later today,
> > provided it passes local testing.
> >
> > All those in favour say aye?
> >
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 15:54:18 -0500
> James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 13:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:02:42 -0700
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Andrew Morto
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 14:05 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> OK, thanks. I hereby propose that I send the below
> (voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch) to Linus later
> today,
> provided it passes local testing.
>
> All those in favour say aye?
Boots for me on my voyagers, so aye.
J
d conversions in generic x86 by
re abstracting the operations so they (and several other functions) can
be shared between x86.
With this, voyager builds and boots on 2.6.22-rc1.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
C
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 13:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:02:42 -0700
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Does "that" have name? I can find no patch in -mm which appears to have
> > > anything to do with SMP consolidation, and t
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Confused. This patch conflicts a lot with James's one (which I named
> voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch).
>
> If your "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" also fixes
> Voyager and is preferred then cool, but a) the changelog should tell us
>
On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:02:42 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Does "that" have name? I can find no patch in -mm which appears to have
> > anything to do with SMP consolidation, and this patch applies cleanly to
> > the current -mm lineup.
> >
> So
On Monday 14 May 2007 21:03, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > No, I'm proposing this for 2.6.22-rc1 ... Andi has already said he won't
> > push the smp consolidation patch for 2.6.22.
> >
> > Without this patch, voyager won't even build, since the smp_ops broke
> > it, so it
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Does "that" have name? I can find no patch in -mm which appears to have
> anything to do with SMP consolidation, and this patch applies cleanly to
> the current -mm lineup.
>
Sorry, I thought you'd picked this up:
Subject: i386: move common parts of smp into their own f
On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:10:48 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [VOYAGER] fix build broken by shift to smp_ops
> >
> > This adds an smp_ops for voy
James Bottomley wrote:
> No, I'm proposing this for 2.6.22-rc1 ... Andi has already said he won't
> push the smp consolidation patch for 2.6.22.
>
> Without this patch, voyager won't even build, since the smp_ops broke
> it, so it needs to be fixed *now*.
>
Sure, I suppose. But given that the
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 10:10 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [VOYAGER] fix build broken by shift to smp_ops
> >
> > This adds an smp_ops for voyager, and hooks things up app
James Bottomley wrote:
> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [VOYAGER] fix build broken by shift to smp_ops
>
> This adds an smp_ops for voyager, and hooks things up appropriately.
> This is the first baby-step to making subarch runtime switchable.
>
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [VOYAGER] fix build broken by shift to smp_ops
This adds an smp_ops for voyager, and hooks things up appropriately.
This is the first baby-step to making subarch runtime switchable.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL
22 matches
Mail list logo
