lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] x86 fixes
On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:49:07 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Mon, 5 May 2008, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:12:02 +0300
> > Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:35:42PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > Thomas Gleixner (2):
> > > >...
> > > > x86: olpc build fix
> > > >...
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -1661,6 +1661,7 @@ config GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER
> > > >
> > > > config OLPC
> > > > bool "One Laptop Per Child support"
> > > > + depends on MGEODE_LX
> > > > default n
> > > > help
> > > >...
> > >
> > > This patch not only excludes OLPC and code depending on it
> > > (currently BATTERY_OLPC) from all{mod,yes}config builds (where it
> > > built fine) but also makes it very hard for generic distribution
> > > kernels to support the OLPC.
> > >
> > > The commit comment does not indicate what the actual problem was,
> > > and if this patch was sent to linux-kernel I must have missed it.
> > >
> > > What exactly was the build problem?
> > > Can we fix it in a less invasive way?
> >
> > Also, it would've been nice to have been CC'd on this; I didn't see
> > it until it was committed.
>
> Sorry, this should not have gone mainline. We had your patch queued
> (via Andrew) and it had testing failures, which we sent to you. One
> workaround was that build patch. When we dropped your patch we forgot
> to remove the workaround as well.
>

Will it be removed, then? I haven't seen any explanation of its
benefits, and Adrian's point about not catching build failures in
olpc_battery is valid.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-07 17:41    [W:0.065 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site