On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 07:19:53AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2004, Matt Porter wrote: > > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:12:10AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > i just bk-cloned a fresh copy of the source tree from > > > http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linuxppc-2.5, and once again, had to fix the > > > file arch/ppc/kernel/ppc_ksyms.c to remove the now-obsolete snippet of > > > code: > > > > > > #if defined(CONFIG_8xx) > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(request_8xxirq); > > > #endif > > > > > > i thought it had been well-established by now that this had to go. > > > what's the protocol for someone putting these changes into the tree? > > > just curious. > > > > Post a patch. If it's something that is incorrect in linux-2.5 > > as well, then the patch is expected to be against linux-2.5. > > post to this list? sure, if that's the right place. the only reason i'm > obsessed about that little fix as opposed to all the others that are going > in is that, WRT the most recent BK pull from > http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linuxppc-2.5, that's the *only* thing that > keeps the kernel from compiling, and letting me build that a kernel that, > while it loads and runs, admittedly still blows up upon starting init. > > while i realize that the current kernel still has user land problems, it > seems a shame to not at least fix the single minor thing that prevents a > simple build.
I still like to argue that it's best to loudly blow up than to compile fine and then die in other ways at run-time (if someone hadn't gotten the last problem fixed on 8xx I was getting tempted to move what we had done now up with an #error tossed on top of head_8xx.S pointing people to what's wrong, etc). -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
