From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Lane To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: linuxppc-2.5 (mvista rsync) -- drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in something not a structure or union Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:51:01 -0700 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org References: <200308100851.04174.miles.lane@comcast.net> <1060547919.599.34.camel@gaston> In-Reply-To: <1060547919.599.34.camel@gaston> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200308101351.01114.miles.lane@comcast.net> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Sun August 10 2003 1:38 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 17:51, Miles Lane wrote: > > CC drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.o > > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_device': > > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1843: error: request for member `queue_head' in > > something not a structure or union > > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c: In function `idepmac_wake_drive': > > drivers/ide/ppc/pmac.c:1927: error: request for member `queue_head' in > > something not a structure or union > > I sent an updated version of this driver to linus today When you send patches to Linus to fix problems that show up in the linuxppc-2.5 tree, you don't also apply the patch directly to the linuxppc-2.5 tree? If you and Paul use BK, couldn't you have Paul pull the changeset? Is our current process the most efficient we could use? I am curious, why do you and Paul not use a system more like Russell's (changes move into Linus' tree as soon as they are fairly well tested and he maintains the ARM patches in http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rmk/arm/v2.5/)? Thanks, Miles ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/