Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Separate arch patching (Re: [patch-mm 06/25] clockevents: Fix resume logic) | Date | Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:51:04 +0200 | From | Oleg Verych <> |
| |
* From: Thomas Gleixner
[] > Fixup the existing users. > > This removes the sysfs entry for the HPET, which is now controlled by > the clockevents resume code. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > --- > arch/arm/mach-davinci/time.c | 2 + > arch/arm/mach-imx/time.c | 1 > arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/common.c | 2 + > arch/arm/mach-omap1/time.c | 1 > arch/arm/plat-omap/timer32k.c | 2 +
Testers and users are most likely to run one particular arch on one particular test bench. If individual patches are arch separated, i think bisecting will be a little bit easier.
Thus, i would like to propose separate arch patching (x86_64/i386 mainly).
Is it possible to do that? (And even set such check in ``checkpatch''?)
You would say, why? Because current kbuild/kconfig support of builds for whole tree.
That's because to make download, build, test and debug particular arch more easily, i'm trying to re-think and re-do some kbuild parts. With minimum set of files, downloaded with git one can spend less time/bandwidth for starting testing.
> arch/i386/kernel/apic.c | 3 + > arch/i386/kernel/hpet.c | 71 ++------------------------------------ > arch/i386/kernel/i8253.c | 26 ++++++------- > arch/i386/kernel/vmiclock.c | 1 > arch/i386/xen/time.c | 1
Opinions?
> arch/sh/kernel/timers/timer-tmu.c | 1 > arch/sparc64/kernel/time.c | 1 ____ - 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/
| |