[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49200B3C.7020203@gentoo.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:59:56 +0100
From: Raúl Porcel <armin76@...too.org>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
klausman@...too.org, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, rth@...ddle.net
Subject: Re: [ALPHA] 2.6.28-rc fails to compile
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 06:59:35AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:45:53 +0200
>> Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 06:27:41AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>> Andrew has a patch for this in his tree for a while... I was
>>>> assuming he'd do a patchdump to Linus late in -rc1 but it seems not
>>>> to have happened..
>>> The basic problem for the Alpha build errors are circular #include's
>>> (that are anyway a pretty bad thing), and I'm currently attacking
>>> that problem (it seems to be surprisingly easy).
>>>
>>> That's IMHO better than the patch in -mm that uninlines
>>> pci_ioremap_bar().
>> and in my opinion the uninline is nicer ;)
>> Because that means we can add more checks to it over time without
>> bloating the kernel.
>
> My usage of the word "better" was wrong.
>
> For fixing the compile error I do consider the patch I'm currently
> testing as better, since this could otherwise beat us again in the
> future.
>
> But the patches are completely orthogonal, and there's no reason against
> including both.
>
> cu
> Adrian
>
Any news? Something i could test?
rc5 still fails, just FYI :)
--
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