Re: [patch 3/5] git-ia64 versus genirq

[Horms <horms@verge.net.au>]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 06:55:36AM +0800, Zou Nan hai wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 21:58, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Horms <horms@verge.net.au> writes:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:28:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:07:22 +0900
> > >> horms@tabatha.lab.ultramonkey.org wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> > commit 1f4c5c1fe2a6a74271989ec079af11e2bb8e2826
> > >>> > tree a0da63a3dcc3ffd71653ecc039db416dbcaa86d4
> > >>> > parent beada884dd437b509c26b39f1a0b0c6b31e6f340
> > >>> > author Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> 1151573360 -0700
> > >>> > committer Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> 1151607053 -0700
> > >>> > 
> > >>> > [IA64] git-ia64 versus genirq
> > >>> > 
> > >>> > Fix the git-ia64 tree after genirq merge.
> > >>> > 
> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> > >>> 
> > >>> Patch from test branch of Tony Luck's ia64 tree.
> > >>> This is needed for ia64 kexec in Linus's tree.
> > >>> 
> > >> 
> > >> I think you're telling us that Tony needs to get this into mainline, yes?
> > >
> > > This would be ia64 kexec.
> > >
> > > I was thinking more along the lines that it would be nice if Zou Nan hai
> > > sent incremental patches against Tony's tree. But he probably gets more
> > > testing by sending out a apply and forget patch against 2.6.18-rc4. And
> > > certainly merging ia64 kexec into Linus' tree would be a nice resolution
> > > to this problem.
> > >
> > > At OLS Tony spoke about what state he would like to see kexec in before
> > > it is merged into Linus' tree. Basically reports that it works on
> > > at least a cople of different vendor's gear. That is proving harder
> > > than one might have hoped. But the code is marked as experimental,
> > > and if pushing it into Linus's tree both makes patch management a bit
> > > easier, and potentially gives the code better testing, then it seems
> > > like a good idea to me.
> > 
> > Guys I have a serious problem with this patchset.
> > 
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 	That based patchset was post days before the OLS....
> 	I have a much crash path simplified patch set posted a few days before.
> 	http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/linux-ia64/0608/18790.html
> 	I agree that we should have minmal code in crash path.
> 	I am trying to simplify that patch set more.

Just for the record, that patch should have been included in
the series that I posted and this thread has spawned off.

When I say I posted, I may have done the posting, but
its just reformating if your patches, so there is really
absolutly nothing new in there.

My real aim in posting the patches in incremental form was firstly to
make it easier to see how the code is evolving.  And secondly to make
any applying and/or merging, particularly into Tony's tree, easier.

-- 
Horms
  H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
  W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/