Am 25.01.2013 11:08, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 25/01/2013 10:23, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >>>> As far as I understood, Andreas did not have any objections on the >>>> contents of this patch, which doesn't make things any better or worse >>>> from his point of view. >> I didn't receive a patch to fix cpu.c yet so I'll do that on my own. >> >> Paolo, please check for any other uses of CONFIG_USER_ONLY in the files >> you are moving and make sure that the respective maintainers are aware >> of and understand the impact of your changes. > > But I'm not moving anything! :) Not with these patches at least. > > Which is why I haven't sent the CONFIG_USER_ONLY patch yet. Things seem > to work, have been like this for over a month, as long as we don't > forget there's no hurry really.
My hurry is due to the freezes, but being a true bug it would qualify for Hard Freeze. Still I am queuing all bugfixes I can find now already. >> The patches are mostly mechanical substitutions, and there is no >> user-visible change---neither in total build time, nor in the files that >> are linked into the executables. > > I did this check when I eliminated libuser, and there was none. > Unfortunately, the patch that introduced CONFIG_USER_ONLY went in with > the same round of merges on Dec 19. It was a merge conflict, that's it. To clarify: My comment was not restricted to this series, it was directed at refactoring the build system in general; I also had the BSD breakage (for which the fix was still not committed?) in mind, which was not a mismerge but an oversight on your part. But I admit checking qom/cpu.c wouldn't have found it, by contrast, at whatever point (because hidden in the included header file). Cheers, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
