Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 May 2008 11:41:37 -0400 | From | Andres Salomon <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |