![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Chris Wright wrote: > * Olof Johansson (olof@austin.ibm.com) 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 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 13:10 [W:0.733 / U:0.090 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||