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

Reply via email to