Hi Sam,
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:06:32 +0200 Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I removed the offending commits from kbuild-next before I
> sent the pull request.
> I will though revisit the issue after -rc1.
Thanks again.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 02:13:30PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:40:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c: In function '_
Hi Sam,
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:40:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c: In function '__spu_trap_data_seg':
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c:194: error: duplic
Hi Roman.
I saw your reply on the list archives but can not find
it in my inbox.
On Sun Jul 13 at 09:21:08 EST 2008, Roman Zippel wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Milton Miller wrote:
(1) #define PAGE_OFFSET(ASM_CONST(CONFIG_PAGE_OFFSET) << 32)
It creates unreadable code, where two defines wi
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Milton Miller wrote:
> (1) #define PAGE_OFFSET(ASM_CONST(CONFIG_PAGE_OFFSET) << 32)
>
> It creates unreadable code, where two defines with almost the same name (the
> only difference being
> the CONFIG_ prefix, which is often ignored when scanning) contains radically
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri Jul 11 00:59:25 EST 2008, Roman Zippel wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Well yes :) But I think that's because you're thinking of
> "end-users" and I'm thinking of "users" like myself - ie. _I_ use
> Kconfig and I do expect myself to
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Well yes :) But I think that's because you're thinking of
> "end-users" and I'm thinking of "users" like myself - ie. _I_ use
> Kconfig and I do expect myself to be able to type a 64-bit address.
That doesn't really answer my question, why you
Hi,
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> We use Kconfig for a mixture of user editable values and fixed
> configuration values.
> And I agree that asking the user to input a 64 bit number is not usefull.
>
> But keeping support for 64 bit values is what I would consider
> expected functiona
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 04:55 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > I don't really see why it "doesn't make sense" for users to input 64-bit
> > values, they're configuring addresses for a 64-bit kernel, so some of
> > the values are going to be 64 b
Hi Roman.
I thought a bit more about this.
> I should have gone through all archs to test this, sorry about that.
> Luckily it's only powerpc that uses 64bit values. I would prefer to
> standardize on 32bit values, as it doesn't really make sense to expect
> from the user to input full 64bit va
Hi,
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> I don't really see why it "doesn't make sense" for users to input 64-bit
> values, they're configuring addresses for a 64-bit kernel, so some of
> the values are going to be 64 bit.
Do you really expect users to insert random 64bit addresses with
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 18:13 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c: In function '__spu_trap_data_seg':
> > arch/pow
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:13:55PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c: In function '__spu_trap_data_seg':
> > a
Hi,
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c: In function '__spu_trap_data_seg':
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c:194: error: duplicate case value
> arch/powe
Hi Sam,
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:51:38 +0200 Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I see what is wrong - we use a int to hold the value above
> and it does not fit.
>
> Will fix tonight or tomorrow.
Thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.canb.auu
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:40:38PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c: In function '__spu_trap_data_seg':
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c:194: error: duplicate case v
Hi Sam,
Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c: In function '__spu_trap_data_seg':
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c:194: error: duplicate case value
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spu_base.c:177: error: previously used here
17 matches
Mail list logo
