From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750876AbVLOSBA (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:01:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750878AbVLOSA7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:00:59 -0500 Received: from witte.sonytel.be ([80.88.33.193]:43259 "EHLO witte.sonytel.be") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750875AbVLOSA6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:00:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:00:54 +0100 (CET) From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Al Viro cc: Roman Zippel , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Development , Linux/m68k Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] m68k: compile fix - ADBREQ_RAW missing declaration In-Reply-To: <20051215175536.GA27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <20051215085516.GU27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20051215171645.GY27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20051215175536.GA27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 06:51:40PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Al Viro wrote: > > > So who should I put as the author? You or Geert (or whatever attributions > > > might have been in said big patch)? Incidentally, ADBREQ_RAW had leaked > > > into mainline (sans definition) in 2.3.45-pre2, which was Feb 13 2000, i.e. > > > more than 1.5 year before your commit, so there's quite a chunk of history > > > missing... > > > > I'd say Geert, but it probably comes from the Mac tree. Anyway, it > > wouldn't be such a bad idea to ask him first why it's in his postponed > > queue: Indeed, usually there's a good reason for being in that state instead of not being merged ;-) > > http://linux-m68k-cvs.ubb.ca/~geert/linux-m68k-2.6.x-merging/POSTPONED/130-adbraw.diff > > > > My guess it needs some ack from the ppc people. > > It doesn't - behaviour in case when ADBREQ_RAW is not passed in flags had > been obviously unchanged. And only m68k passes ADBREQ_RAW in there. > So no, it doesn't affect ppc at all. Even if behavior is unchanged, this doesn't mean that people like their code being modified behind their back... Anyway, last time I tried to bring this up with the union of Mac and PowerMac guys, no one seemed to remember why ADBREQ_RAW was really needed... Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds