Hi, I thought I would get this and the atomic functions finally upstreamed. Is the above still valid? Should I rebase my patch for the "for-upstream" branch?
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Christian Svensson <b...@cmd.nu> wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Jonas Bonn <jo...@southpole.se> wrote: > > a meaningful commit message... including a > > Signed-off-by: tag. > Right, I'm used to the "short and many" changes flow from the other > things. No problem, I will shape up :-). > > > > This is based on an old kernel and this is an area where we've seen a > lot of > > changes recently. Could you resubmit this patch for a recent kernel? > Honestly I'd forgotten that I worked on an old kernel. I will put some > effort in getting things working with the provided repo. > > > (I could easily massage this into the latest kernel for you, but I think > it > > would be a good exercise for you to do so yourself...). > It's no problem :-). > > I'll submit two new patches when I get things up to speed. > > Regards, > Christian >
_______________________________________________ Linux mailing list Linux@lists.openrisc.net http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/linux