[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1179182555.3703.102.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:42:35 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [VOYAGER] fix build broken by shift to smp_ops
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 15:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 23:58:09 +0200
> Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> 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 is better than James'
> >
>
> 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.
It's Jeremy's patch modified to work in the absence of the smp ops
consolidation patch.
> I take it from your statement that we should merge some Jeremy-patch other
> than this Jeremy-patch?
>
> If "yes", than could Jeremy please resend the other patch(es) (I believe there
> are multiple patches involved) and then can James please test them?
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
James
Download attachment "i386-common-smp.patch" of type "message/rfc822" (9800 bytes)
Download attachment "i386-fix-voyager-build.patch" of type "message/rfc822" (7681 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists