From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758930AbZBFPxW (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:53:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753617AbZBFPxL (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:53:11 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:42606 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752547AbZBFPxJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:53:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:49:17 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jaswinder Singh Rajput , KOSAKI Motohiro , Jaswinder Singh Rajput , Linus Torvalds , Sam Ravnborg , Andrew Morton , hskinnemoen@atmel.com, cooloney@kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, dhowells@redhat.com, matthew@wil.cx, chris@zankel.net, LKML , linux-next , linux-ia64 Subject: Re: [linux-next][PATCH] revert headers_check fix: ia64, fpu.h Message-ID: <20090206154917.GE13758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20090206164546.6291.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <3f9a31f40902060053x18dacf58u40c739ab89f13860@mail.gmail.com> <20090206180957.6294.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090206145556.GH18368@elte.hu> <1233934141.3209.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090206153315.GD13758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20090206154539.GP18368@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090206154539.GP18368@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 04:45:39PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:59:01PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > > > Jaswinder Singh Rajput (2): > > > Neither asm/types.h nor linux/types.h is required for arch/ia64/include/asm/fpu.h > > > make linux/types.h as assembly safe > > > > I continue to disagree with the need for the second patch. > > But have not replied to my mail about that so far. Sigh. No I didn't - because I also got a reply from Jaswinder and covered all points in _that_ reply. Would you like me to re-send my reply so that you can appear in the To: header? Stop making this discussion stupidly obtuse.