On 30 Aug 2006 06:03:23 +0800, Zou Nan hai wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 03:38, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Tuesday 29 August 2006 01:46, Zou Nan hai wrote:
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
>> > +void
>> > +ioc_iova_disable(void)
>> > +{
>>
>> Ugh. If you really need this functionality (which I have to say
>> looks
>> like a band-aid), it probably should be a platform vector. And
>> should
>> be split into a separate patch.
>>
> Hi Bjorn,
> The ioc_iova_disable code comes from Aziz in HP, I have almost
> no idea
> of how IOMMU works on HP platform.
> I am looking for an HP machine with IOMMU to test.
That sounds like even more reason to break it out into a separate patch.
Actually, I really think that you sould either provide a set or smaller
patches, or incremental patches. Its quite hard to follow what is
changing with the current jumbo-patch format.
Its also quite unclear what if any portions you would like merged, and
even which tree you want them merged into - you patches are against
2.6.18-rc5, but the ia64 tree seems the most likely path, and your code
doesn't apply there because some of the changes are already present.
--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/
_______________________________________________
fastboot mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
