On Tuesday 15 August 2006 05:17, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:45:48AM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > SUBARCH has a different meaning here. For UML, it's the underlying,
> > > host, architecture, not a variant architecture like Voyager.
> >
> > Right, so it sounds like this break
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:45:48AM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > SUBARCH has a different meaning here. For UML, it's the underlying,
> > host, architecture, not a variant architecture like Voyager.
>
> Right, so it sounds like this breaks Voyager. Which I think means we
> ought to pass ARCH and
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 12:22:16AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:09:22PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:15:24PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > Make checkstack work for UML. We need to pass the underlying architecture
> > > name, rather than "um" to
On Wed, 9 August 2006 14:15:24 -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
>
> Make checkstack work for UML. We need to pass the underlying architecture
> name, rather than "um" to checkstack.pl.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Joern Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jörn
--
Geld macht nicht
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:09:22PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:15:24PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > Make checkstack work for UML. We need to pass the underlying architecture
> > name, rather than "um" to checkstack.pl.
>
> Does this do the right thing with something lik
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:15:24PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> Make checkstack work for UML. We need to pass the underlying architecture
> name, rather than "um" to checkstack.pl.
Does this do the right thing with something like Voyager?
Or should we just get together a small fund to send the rema
Make checkstack work for UML. We need to pass the underlying architecture
name, rather than "um" to checkstack.pl.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.18-mm/Makefile
===
--- linux-2.6.18-mm.orig/Makefile
