[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811302325050.3314@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:29:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
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))
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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.
Is linux-next running into a conflict between x86 and the acpi
tree today?
thanks,
-Len
--
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