On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:40:41 -0800 Grant Erickson <gerick...@nuovations.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/09 2:05 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:54:42 -0700 dougthomp...@xmission.com wrote: > >> From: Grant Erickson <gerick...@nuovations.com> > > > > Perhaps a powerpc mailing list should have been cc'ed? > > The first round patch went to Doug, the BlueSmoke (EDAC) mailing list and > the Linux/PowerPC mailing list. However, because the original patch was > split in two, subsequent revisions of just the EDAC piece went to Doug and > BlueSmoke. Doug then forwarded it to linux-kernel. > > What's the preferred sign-off, ACK chain for this subsystem? Through > PowerPC/4xx or PowerPC GIT upstream or through you and -mm upstream? I don't trust those guys ;) I'd merge it via -mm, while cc'ing various random powerpc personalities. > >> +static void > >> +ppc4xx_edac_handle_ce(struct mem_ctl_info *mci, > >> + const struct ppc4xx_ecc_status *status) > >> +{ > >> + int row; > >> + char message[PPC4XX_EDAC_MESSAGE_SIZE]; > > > > 256 bytes on the stack is getting a bit large. > > Would you characterize this as a "getting a bit large, but still OK" or > "getting a bit large, this MUST be changed"? The former. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev