* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i fixed it up by hand - the result is below - does it look OK to
> > you? (Also, could you check latest x86.git whether i've picked up
> > all your patches correctly - the reject might be indicative of some
> > missing pieces.)
>
>
On Dec 19, 2007 8:17 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
> > integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
> > to processor.h around
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
> integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
> to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note
> that there's much
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note
that there's much less
On Dec 19, 2007 8:17 AM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
to processor.h around ifdefs, and
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i fixed it up by hand - the result is below - does it look OK to
you? (Also, could you check latest x86.git whether i've picked up
all your patches correctly - the reject might be indicative of some
missing pieces.)
Your fix is
On Dec 18, 2007 7:32 PM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > > > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be
On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
> > > integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions.
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
> > > integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They
On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
> > integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
> > to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
> integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
> to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note
> that there's much less headers included in the
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note that
there's much less headers included in the final version.
Signed-off-by: Glauber de
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> yes, our include file dependencies are a jungle, the differences between
>>> 32-bit and 64-bit are arbitrary in 80% of the cases, but still there's no
>>> reason why
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> here the problem is apparently caused by your patch, a careless
>> 'unification' of include file sections. 32-bit had this:
>
> Point is this patches do unification, but they are not just that, as
> you can see. I am attempting to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yes, our include file dependencies are a jungle, the differences
between 32-bit and 64-bit are arbitrary in 80% of the cases, but still
there's no reason why this couldnt be done correctly. The patch below
is a quick bandaid that
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are
moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are
deleted. Note that there's much less
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes, our include file dependencies are a jungle, the differences
> between 32-bit and 64-bit are arbitrary in 80% of the cases, but still
> there's no reason why this couldnt be done correctly. The patch below
> is a quick bandaid that adds the
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
> > integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are
> > moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are
> > deleted. Note that there's much less
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are
moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are
deleted. Note that there's much less headers
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, our include file dependencies are a jungle, the differences
between 32-bit and 64-bit are arbitrary in 80% of the cases, but still
there's no reason why this couldnt be done correctly. The patch below
is a quick bandaid that adds the missing
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are
moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are
deleted. Note that there's much less
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, our include file dependencies are a jungle, the differences
between 32-bit and 64-bit are arbitrary in 80% of the cases, but still
there's no reason why this couldnt be done correctly. The patch below
is a quick bandaid that adds
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
here the problem is apparently caused by your patch, a careless
'unification' of include file sections. 32-bit had this:
Point is this patches do unification, but they are not just that, as
you can see. I am attempting to cleanup
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, our include file dependencies are a jungle, the differences between
32-bit and 64-bit are arbitrary in 80% of the cases, but still there's no
reason why this couldnt be
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note that
there's much less headers included in the final version.
Signed-off-by: Glauber de
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note
that there's much less headers included in the final
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are
On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are
On Dec 18, 2007 7:32 PM, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note that
there's much less headers included in the final version.
Signed-off-by: Glauber de
What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved
to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note that
there's much less headers included in the final version.
Signed-off-by: Glauber de
32 matches
Mail list logo
