Am 26.09.2013 18:06, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra:
> Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> And, of course, this makes your patch valid.
>> Can you also please ensure that your new defconfigs are minimal?
>
> Yeah, it's close to a minimal configuration for the 3.10 kernel
> (latest at the time of patch submission). I was aiming to minimize the
> diff between the current defconfig and the two new defconfigs in
> configs/. The slim diffstat does the talking:
>
> arch/um/Kconfig.common | 5 -
> arch/um/Makefile | 11 ++
> arch/um/{defconfig => configs/i386_defconfig} | 209 +++++++++++++-------
> arch/um/{defconfig => configs/x86_64_defconfig} | 250
> +++++++++++++++---------
> arch/x86/um/Kconfig | 5 +
> 5 files changed, 306 insertions(+), 174 deletions(-)
> copy arch/um/{defconfig => configs/i386_defconfig} (86%)
> rename arch/um/{defconfig => configs/x86_64_defconfig} (83%)
>
> If we find some deficiencies, we can always update it. For now, please
> commit these two patches.
Please resend them with savedefconfig applied.
There is no need to have three commits for that.
Thanks,
//richard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
