On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 13:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:02:42 -0700 > Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Does "that" have name? I can find no patch in -mm which appears to have > > > anything to do with SMP consolidation, and this patch applies cleanly to > > > the current -mm lineup. > > > > > Sorry, I thought you'd picked this up: > > > > > > Subject: i386: move common parts of smp into their own file > > > > Several parts of kernel/smp.c and smpboot.c are generally useful for > > other subarchitectures and paravirt_ops implementations, so make them > > available for reuse. > > Confused. This patch conflicts a lot with James's one (which I named > voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch).
> If your "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" also fixes > Voyager and is preferred then cool, but a) the changelog should tell us > that and b) could James please test it? OK, let me try a brief history. A while ago Eric pointed out that the smp ops patch in -mm would break voyager. So we worked on (and tested a fix for it). Part of the fix was the prerequisite patch "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file". The fix on top of this was called "i386: fix voyager build" which actually fixed the voyager build. I've been nagging Andi for a couple of weeks now to get these two upstream. Finally he replied that the he wasn't planning on sending the precursor "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" upstream for 2.6.22. So I had to do a patch that would fix the voyager build without this ... which is what you have. So, you either need the single patch you have, or the other two entitled "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file". "i386: fix voyager build" James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
