From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760411AbYEGPiZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 11:38:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756902AbYEGPiI (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 11:38:08 -0400 Received: from mail.queued.net ([207.210.101.209]:1855 "EHLO mail.queued.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755588AbYEGPiF (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 11:38:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:41:37 -0400 From: Andres Salomon To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Adrian Bunk , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [git pull] x86 fixes Message-ID: <20080507114137.357aca34@ephemeral> In-Reply-To: References: <20080504193113.GA24358@elte.hu> <20080505151202.GA17139@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080505112917.7d4548fb@ephemeral> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:49:07 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 5 May 2008, Andres Salomon wrote: > > On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:12:02 +0300 > > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:35:42PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > >... > > > > Thomas Gleixner (2): > > > >... > > > > x86: olpc build fix > > > >... > > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > > @@ -1661,6 +1661,7 @@ config GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER > > > > > > > > config OLPC > > > > bool "One Laptop Per Child support" > > > > + depends on MGEODE_LX > > > > default n > > > > help > > > >... > > > > > > This patch not only excludes OLPC and code depending on it > > > (currently BATTERY_OLPC) from all{mod,yes}config builds (where it > > > built fine) but also makes it very hard for generic distribution > > > kernels to support the OLPC. > > > > > > The commit comment does not indicate what the actual problem was, > > > and if this patch was sent to linux-kernel I must have missed it. > > > > > > What exactly was the build problem? > > > Can we fix it in a less invasive way? > > > > Also, it would've been nice to have been CC'd on this; I didn't see > > it until it was committed. > > Sorry, this should not have gone mainline. We had your patch queued > (via Andrew) and it had testing failures, which we sent to you. One > workaround was that build patch. When we dropped your patch we forgot > to remove the workaround as well. > Will it be removed, then? I haven't seen any explanation of its benefits, and Adrian's point about not catching build failures in olpc_battery is valid.