Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Just wanted to inquire about the current status of it, as I'd
> rather not pull anything that introduces breakages and is still
> work in progress. Once it's all sorted out I'll have a look.
Should I pull the x86 disintegration and perf fixes onto a tree derived from
tipbo
* David Howells wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Just wondering, have the tools/perf/ issues been solved in your
> > tree, are the x86 UAPI disintegration changes pullable?
>
> Did you have a look at the set of five patches I sent? I
> think those should fix up perf and building tools wit
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Just wondering, have the tools/perf/ issues been solved in your
> tree, are the x86 UAPI disintegration changes pullable?
Did you have a look at the set of five patches I sent? I think those should
fix up perf and building tools with O=, but I'm not sure whether we want th
* David Howells wrote:
> Provide a comment in the empty uapi/asm/hw_breakpoint.h to make sure that the
> patch program doesn't delete it.
>
> However, should some part of asm/hw_breakpoint.h actually be exported here,
> or, possibly, should the entire uapi file be removed? In v3.6, though the
Provide a comment in the empty uapi/asm/hw_breakpoint.h to make sure that the
patch program doesn't delete it.
However, should some part of asm/hw_breakpoint.h actually be exported here,
or, possibly, should the entire uapi file be removed? In v3.6, though the
file was marked for export to usersp
5 matches
Mail list logo
