On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:33:44AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:05:54 -0400
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > ... in preparation for doing it differently for CalIOC2.
> >
>
> This patch gets
>
> patching file arch/x86_64/kernel/pci-calgary.c
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 374.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 403.
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 457.
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 473.
> Hunk #6 FAILED at 489.
> 5 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> arch/x86_64/kernel/pci-calgary.c.rej
> Failed to apply
> x86-64-calgary-abstract-how-we-find-the-iommu_table-for-a-device
>
>
> due to git-pciseg.patch.
>
> So I'll drop git-pciseg until this patch gets to mainline and then
> git-pciseg gets fixed up for it.
Regardless of who it is, people have to stop fighting over ->sysdata.
It's unscalable, regardless of who it is.
Whoever wants to be upstream first should take the basic "x86 sysdata"
bits from jgarzik/misc-2.6.git#pciseg and push those upstream... which
I note includes Calgary work.
Then NUMA, Calgary and PCI domain stuff merely involve modifying the x86
version of struct pci_sysdata.
I would NAK any [PCI domain | NUMA | Calgary]-only approach to using
->sysdata. It clearly does NOT belong to any one subsystem, regardless
of who gets upstream first.
Drop git-pciseg? sure. Make sysdata Calgary-specific? NAK.
Jeff
-
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/
