x86 fixes
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: default to n for GROUP_SCHED and FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
Next: [PATCH] IB/ehca: Change function return types to correct type.
From: Adrian Bunk on 5 May 2008 11:20 On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:35:42PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >... > Thomas Gleixner (2): >... > x86: olpc build fix >... > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > @@ -1661,6 +1661,7 @@ config GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER > > config OLPC > bool "One Laptop Per Child support" > + depends on MGEODE_LX > default n > help >... This patch not only excludes OLPC and code depending on it (currently BATTERY_OLPC) from all{mod,yes}config builds (where it built fine) but also makes it very hard for generic distribution kernels to support the OLPC. The commit comment does not indicate what the actual problem was, and if this patch was sent to linux-kernel I must have missed it. What exactly was the build problem? Can we fix it in a less invasive way? Thanks in advance Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Andres Salomon on 5 May 2008 11:30 On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:12:02 +0300 Adrian Bunk <bunk(a)kernel.org> wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:35:42PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >... > > Thomas Gleixner (2): > >... > > x86: olpc build fix > >... > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > @@ -1661,6 +1661,7 @@ config GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER > > > > config OLPC > > bool "One Laptop Per Child support" > > + depends on MGEODE_LX > > default n > > help > >... > > This patch not only excludes OLPC and code depending on it (currently > BATTERY_OLPC) from all{mod,yes}config builds (where it built fine) > but also makes it very hard for generic distribution kernels to > support the OLPC. > > The commit comment does not indicate what the actual problem was, and > if this patch was sent to linux-kernel I must have missed it. > > What exactly was the build problem? > Can we fix it in a less invasive way? Also, it would've been nice to have been CC'd on this; I didn't see it until it was committed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Thomas Gleixner on 6 May 2008 09:00 On Mon, 5 May 2008, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:12:02 +0300 > Adrian Bunk <bunk(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:35:42PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >... > > > Thomas Gleixner (2): > > >... > > > x86: olpc build fix > > >... > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > @@ -1661,6 +1661,7 @@ config GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER > > > > > > config OLPC > > > bool "One Laptop Per Child support" > > > + depends on MGEODE_LX > > > default n > > > help > > >... > > > > This patch not only excludes OLPC and code depending on it (currently > > BATTERY_OLPC) from all{mod,yes}config builds (where it built fine) > > but also makes it very hard for generic distribution kernels to > > support the OLPC. > > > > The commit comment does not indicate what the actual problem was, and > > if this patch was sent to linux-kernel I must have missed it. > > > > What exactly was the build problem? > > Can we fix it in a less invasive way? > > Also, it would've been nice to have been CC'd on this; I didn't see it > until it was committed. Sorry, this should not have gone mainline. We had your patch queued (via Andrew) and it had testing failures, which we sent to you. One workaround was that build patch. When we dropped your patch we forgot to remove the workaround as well. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Andres Salomon on 7 May 2008 11:40 On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:49:07 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <tglx(a)linutronix.de> wrote: > On Mon, 5 May 2008, Andres Salomon wrote: > > On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:12:02 +0300 > > Adrian Bunk <bunk(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:35:42PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > >... > > > > Thomas Gleixner (2): > > > >... > > > > x86: olpc build fix > > > >... > > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > > @@ -1661,6 +1661,7 @@ config GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER > > > > > > > > config OLPC > > > > bool "One Laptop Per Child support" > > > > + depends on MGEODE_LX > > > > default n > > > > help > > > >... > > > > > > This patch not only excludes OLPC and code depending on it > > > (currently BATTERY_OLPC) from all{mod,yes}config builds (where it > > > built fine) but also makes it very hard for generic distribution > > > kernels to support the OLPC. > > > > > > The commit comment does not indicate what the actual problem was, > > > and if this patch was sent to linux-kernel I must have missed it. > > > > > > What exactly was the build problem? > > > Can we fix it in a less invasive way? > > > > Also, it would've been nice to have been CC'd on this; I didn't see > > it until it was committed. > > Sorry, this should not have gone mainline. We had your patch queued > (via Andrew) and it had testing failures, which we sent to you. One > workaround was that build patch. When we dropped your patch we forgot > to remove the workaround as well. > Will it be removed, then? I haven't seen any explanation of its benefits, and Adrian's point about not catching build failures in olpc_battery is valid. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Thomas Gleixner on 7 May 2008 15:20
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Andres Salomon wrote: > > Sorry, this should not have gone mainline. We had your patch queued > > (via Andrew) and it had testing failures, which we sent to you. One > > workaround was that build patch. When we dropped your patch we forgot > > to remove the workaround as well. > > > > Will it be removed, then? I haven't seen any explanation of its > benefits, and Adrian's point about not catching build failures in > olpc_battery is valid. Yes, it's scheduled for the next pull request. What's the state of the build failures of your original patch ? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |