[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081129093414.GB26691@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:34:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: drivers/x86 (Was: Re: linux-next: Tree for November 28
(misc/tc1100))
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Len,
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:55:08 -0800 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `drivers/misc/tc1100-wmi.o', needed by `drivers/misc/built-in.o'.
> >
> > on allmodconfig & allyesconfig for i386.
> >
> > On, moved to drivers/x86/. Someone needs to clean up drivers/misc/Makefile.
>
> Just wondering where the move to drivers/x86 was discussed, (reviewed
> and tested) and why the change is in the acpi tree and not the x86
> tree?
it will all conflict with pending bits in the x86 tree, so i'd prefer if
Len did this atomically after 2.6.29-rc1, without it having this
long-term breakage effect.
Historically drivers/misc/ has been more active via the ACPI tree. (Len
being the (in-)voluntary maintainer for those platform details)
So drivers/x86/ makes sense i guess. Eventually the really lowlevel bits
might move to arch/x86/drivers/ or so - but i've got no strong opinion on
it. There seems to be enough precedent of existing drivers/$ARCH
hierarchies.
Ingo
--
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