From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmHDumwgUG9yY2Vs?= Subject: Re: [ALPHA] 2.6.28-rc fails to compile Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:59:56 +0100 Message-ID: <49200B3C.7020203@gentoo.org> References: <49083361.5060907@gentoo.org> <20081029100356.GA28224@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <20081029062741.7400e330@infradead.org> <20081029134553.GA9108@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <20081029065935.7a5930f9@infradead.org> <20081029141909.GC9108@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081029141909.GC9108@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> Sender: linux-alpha-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Ivan Kokshaysky , klausman@gentoo.org, Jesse Barnes , Andrew Morton , rth@twiddle.net Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 06:59:35AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:45:53 +0200 >> Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 06:27:41AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>>> Andrew has a patch for this in his tree for a while... I was >>>> assuming he'd do a patchdump to Linus late in -rc1 but it seems not >>>> to have happened.. >>> The basic problem for the Alpha build errors are circular #include's >>> (that are anyway a pretty bad thing), and I'm currently attacking >>> that problem (it seems to be surprisingly easy). >>> >>> That's IMHO better than the patch in -mm that uninlines >>> pci_ioremap_bar(). >> and in my opinion the uninline is nicer ;) >> Because that means we can add more checks to it over time without >> bloating the kernel. > > My usage of the word "better" was wrong. > > For fixing the compile error I do consider the patch I'm currently > testing as better, since this could otherwise beat us again in the > future. > > But the patches are completely orthogonal, and there's no reason against > including both. > > cu > Adrian > Any news? Something i could test? rc5 still fails, just FYI :)