[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18438.33744.389334.543623@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:55:12 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix find_next_bit breakage on ppc and powerpc
Ingo Molnar writes:
>
> * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com> wrote:
>
> > Powerpc (and ppc) have their have some code in their bitops.h which
> > used to be exacly the same as asm-generic/bitops/find.h. Include this
> > header instead.
> >
> > This should also fix the compile problems due to the generic
> > find_next_bit changes. Those were fixed by Thomas Gleixner in
> > asm-generic/bitops/find.h earlier.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
>
> thanks, applied. I dropped:
Why are powerpc (and ppc) patches
- not being sent to the powerpc maintainer (me)
- not being cc'd to the linuxppc-dev@...abs.org list
- ending up going through the x86 tree?
How come patches to unify x86_32 and x86_64 bitops need to end up
touching powerpc?
Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists