Ingo Molnar writes: > * Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > > > Steven Rostedt writes: > > > > > > > Can I add your Acked-by: to all these patches that I submitted? I'm > > > > going > > > > to recommit them with a consistent subject (all lower case ppc), but > > > > I'm > > > > not going to change the patches themselves. > > > > > > > > Would you two be fine with that? Or at least one of you? > > > > > > My preference would be for the patches to go through the powerpc tree > > > unless there is a good reason for them to go via another tree. > > > > I have no problem with that. The only thing is that we have a lot of > > pending work still in the linux-tip tree, which you may need to pull > > in to get these patches working. Well, there's two or three commits > > in the generic code that I know the PPC code is dependent on. > > > > I could give you a list of commits in tip that need to go mainline > > first before we can pull in the PPC changes. Then you could wait > > till those changes make it into 29 and then you could push the PPC > > modifications in from your tree. > > note that this inserts a lot of (unnecessary) serialization and a > window of non-testing - by all likelyhood this will delay ppc ftrace > to v2.6.30 or later kernels.
Well, note that I said "unless there is a good reason". If it does need to go via your tree, it can, though I don't see that it will get much testing on powerpc there, and having it there will make it harder to manage any conflicts with the other stuff I have queued up. How much generic stuff that's not upstream do the powerpc ftrace patches depend on? Paul. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
