From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263745AbTLTB0P (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:26:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263763AbTLTB0P (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:26:15 -0500 Received: from mtvcafw.SGI.COM ([192.48.171.6]:35307 "EHLO rj.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263745AbTLTB0N (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:26:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:24:28 -0800 To: Pat Gefre Cc: Christoph Hellwig , akpm@osdl.org, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Updating our sn code in 2.6 Message-ID: <20031220012428.GA6654@sgi.com> Mail-Followup-To: Pat Gefre , Christoph Hellwig , akpm@osdl.org, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031219114328.A26526@infradead.org> <200312200035.hBK0ZwWR005874@fsgi900.americas.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312200035.hBK0ZwWR005874@fsgi900.americas.sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: jbarnes@sgi.com (Jesse Barnes) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David, can you take these patches into your tree too? We'll of course continue to clean things up, but with the application of these patches, the 2.6 kernel becomes something really usable for people with Altix machines. Thanks, Jesse On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 06:35:57PM -0600, Pat Gefre wrote: > Christoph, > > Some general comments/questions and then the specifics follow. > > First off, some of the changed/reorg'd code is foundation code for a > new ASIC that we are working on - so it now looks a little silly and > maybe a little like overkill, but we would like to start moving this > code into the community base. > > I'm not sure where you are going with the IP27 idea. IP27 is mips so > the code doesn't belong in the ia64 directories - we also don't support > Bridge/Xbridge in our ia64 code which is why we'd like to get rid of it > and if you wanted to use the code as framework for other work I would > think you could archive a version of the tree now ? So I'm a bit > confused - there must be something I'm missing. > > Also I did these patches sequentially (hence the numbering) - so in > some cases I may have taken out code that wasn't being used at the > time, but then added in back in when it was used. > > Thanks for reviewing this for me - it sounds like we are making some > progress.