Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 04.11.2010 23:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> rework. Safer for now is likely to revert 56ff4329ff, keeping nucleus
>>> debugging off.
>> That is not enough.
> It is, I've reviewed the code today.

The fallouts I am talking about are:

>> This commit was followed by several others to "fix
>> the fix". You know how things are, someone proposes a fix, which fixes
>> things for him, but it breaks in the other people configurations (one of
>> the fallouts was a complete revamp of include/asm-arm/atomic.h for
>> instance).
> I've pushed a series that reverts that commit, then fixes and cleans up
> on top of it. Just pushed if you want to take a look. We can find some
> alternative debugging mechanism independently (though I'm curious to see
> it - it still makes no sense to me).

Since the fix is simply a modification to what we have currently. I
would prefer if we did not remove it. In fact, I think it would be
simpler if we started from what we currently have than reverting past


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to