On 08/04/2009 05:47 PM, Phillip Lougher wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:58:16 +0200
>> Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonne...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>
>>> These includes were added by 079effb6933f34b9b1b67b08bd4fd7fb672d16ef to
>>> fix the build when using kmemtrace. However this is not necessary when
>>> used to create a compressed kernel, and actually creates issues (brings
>>> a lot of things unavailable in the decompression environment), so don't
>>> include it if STATIC is defined.
>>>
>>
>> The description "actually creates issues (brings a lot of things
>> unavailable in the decompression environment)" is inadequate. Please
>> describe te problem this patch fixes more completely so that others
>> (ie: me) can decide whether this patch is needed in 2.6.32, 2.6.31.
>> 2.6.30, ...
>>
>> This patch conflicts heavily with
>>
>> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/bzip2-lzma-remove-nasty-uncompressed-size-hack-in-pre-boot-environment.patch
>>
>> What should we do about that?
>
>
> What do you normally do in this situation? I'm happy to send a revised
> bzip2-lzma-remove-nasty-uncompressed-size-hack-in-pre-boot-environment.patch
>
> that would apply cleanly on-top of Alvin's patch, but, this will obviously
> create dependencies on his patch being applied.
>
The general principle is that if A alone creates a more functional
environment than B alone, then B should be applied on top of A, and vice
versa. This is especially so if A is a stable candidate.
It *sounds* like your patch is B here, but I am not sure from the
description.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
