* Olof Johansson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:59:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
This patch doesn't seem right - current 2.6.11 has:
return cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC;
The patch was against what Greg had already pushed into the linux-release.bkbits.net 2.6.11 tree, i.e. not what's in mainline. You're right, your revised patch would apply against mainline.
However: This patch shouldn't go to mainline, since ppc-ppc64-abstract-cpu_feature-checks.patch in your tree takes care of the problem. I'd like the abstraction/cleanup patch to be merged upstream instead of the #ifdef hack once the tree opens up.
Olof's patch is in the linux-release tree, so this brings up a point regarding merging. If the quick fix is to be replaced by a better fix later (as in this case) there's some room for merge conflict. Does this pose a problem for either -mm or Linus' tree?
Just need to make sure <whomever> aware of this, when you push to Linus.
In most cases, of dire fixes, they should just go into linux-release, and then get pulled into linux-2.6.
For a few cases, like this one, the quick fix will hit linux-release and linux-2.6 before the better fix, so no big deal.
In a few rare cases, you will need to create a "for-upstream" tree that handles the conflict before it get pushed to Linus.
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/
