Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make for_each_cpu() Iterator More Friendly | Date | Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:53:36 +1100 |
| |
In message <20031231015410.A12194@infradead.org> you write: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:26:34PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Please apply. Applies against 2.6.0-mm2 and 2.6.0-bk3. Yay! > > > > Anton: breaks PPC64, as it needs cpu_possible_mask, but fix is already > > in Ameslab tree. > > So what about including the fix in the patch? I don't think a fix in some > obscure tree is a good excuse to break an architecture in a stable series..
Because (1) they've done it already, in anticipation of this change, and tested it in their tree, and (2) it's a non-trivial patch, as they don't have a cpu_possible mask concept at all.
FYI, the Ameslab tree is the main PPC64 public tree.
Now, do you need me to explain anything else? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |