Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:45:04AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>... >> Changes since 2.6.16-mm2: >>... >> +x86-clean-up-subarch-definitions.patch >>... >> x86 updates. >>... > > The following looks bogus:
It is. > > config KEXEC > bool "kexec system call (EXPERIMENTAL)" > - depends on EXPERIMENTAL > + depends on EXPERIMENTAL && (!X86_VOYAGER && SMP) > > The dependencies do now say that KEXEC is only offered for machines that > are _both_ non-Voyager and SMP. > > Is the problem you wanted to express that a non-SMP Voyager config > didn't compile? > > AFAIR I recently sent a patch disallowing non-SMP Voyager configurations > that wasn't yet applied. I think this cleanup patch is even going in the wrong direction. The subarch code right now is a real pain because it is never clear when you are calling a function with multiple definitions. Which makes it really easy to break. If we are going to refactor this can we please move in the direction of a machine vector like alpha, ppc, and arm. I don't see the current this cleanup making it any easier to tell there is code in a subarch. Eric
_______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
