Eric W. Biederman wrote:
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.
No, this cleanup only eliminates the need to duplicate redundant code.
How does a machine vector make it any harder to break? You still have a
function with multiple definitions. Duplicating code makes things
really easy to break - twice.
_______________________________________________
fastboot mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
