From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ausmtp04.au.ibm.com (ausmtp04.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ausmtp04.au.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38290DDECC for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:58:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by ausmtp04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6O2LNp2152158 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:21:23 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.237]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.4) with ESMTP id l6O21We0142632 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:01:33 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l6O1vxpe013520 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:58:00 +1000 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:57:43 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use resource_size_t for serial port IO addresses Message-ID: <20070724015743.GD28577@localhost.localdomain> References: <1184335336.6456.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <20070713120226.797117e2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070715110606.GA32577@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1185199717.4268.5.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <20070723123411.07fc6568.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070723123411.07fc6568.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Russell King , paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:34:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:08:37 -0500 > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 12:06 +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > > This is something we should do, but I have recollections of Russell > > > > identifying problems with this patch, or at least an earlier version of it? > > > > > > Basically, there's two patches. This one (let's call this patch A) > > > and another to prevent users being surprised (let's call that patch B). > > > > > > I didn't have any real objections to patch A, provided something like > > > patch B was merged. I did have objections against patch B, and I was > > > intermittently working on a revised solution. > > > > > > However, for whatever reason [*], during the last merge window patch B > > > got merged and patch A got dropped, and as a result I've now given up > > > with my revised solution, and TBH, I no longer care. > > > > Patch B in this case was commit abb4a2390. Since that has already been > > merged, can we please merge this patch into 2.6.23? I'd really like to > > avoid 44x not working in yet another kernel, so if this patch can't be > > merged I'll have to come up with some alternate solution soon. > > > > I still have a large pile of not-completely-obviously-ready patches to go > through, of which this is one. > > There _were_ issues with this patch when it first turned up, but I failed > to record what they were. Heh. Nor did I ever hear what they might be. > > Oh well, here's hoping it got fixed. > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson