![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 04:35, O.Sezer wrote: > Hello: > [Please CC me on replies] > > What is the status of PIC mode patches [1] by Andrew de Quincey; > are they still needed? The -ac / -pac trees still have them. If the 1st one is needed, I want to know about it. The 2nd and 3rd have been in for a long time. > [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300001&r=1&w=2 > Also see: This is Andrew's PIC-fallback patch. This is probably the most effective and well written patch that I've refused to integrate;-) There are two reasons. 1. it works for some systems, but breaks others. 2. when it works, it hides a failure. Windows doesn't have that failure. We'd rather see the failure, fix it and have Linux work as well as Windows. BTW. SuSE picked up this patch in SL9.0, though I don't know if they still use it. > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300002&r=1&w=2 This has been in the base for about 5 months. But Luming Yu found a better way to handle this issue and his patch was integrated into 2.4 and 2.6 in the last week: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1590 We'll probably delete the original retry code in an upcoming cleanup. > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426100003&r=1&w=2 This patch by Jun Nakajima was pulled into the base about 5 months ago. It was key to getting VIA systems to work. cheers, -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||