Re: [PATCH] trivial fix for 2.6.11 raid6 compilation on ppc w/ Altivec

Andrew Morton
2005-03-04T06:07:19Z

Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> * Olof Johansson (olof@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:59:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > This patch doesn't seem right - current 2.6.11 has:
> > >
> > > return cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC;
> >
> > The patch was against what Greg had already pushed into the
> > linux-release.bkbits.net 2.6.11 tree, i.e. not what's in mainline.
> > You're right, your revised patch would apply against mainline.
> >
> > However: This patch shouldn't go to mainline, since
> > ppc-ppc64-abstract-cpu_feature-checks.patch in your tree takes care of
> > the problem. I'd like the abstraction/cleanup patch to be merged upstream
> > instead of the #ifdef hack once the tree opens up.
>
> Olof's patch is in the linux-release tree, so this brings up a point
> regarding merging. If the quick fix is to be replaced by a better fix
> later (as in this case) there's some room for merge conflict. Does this
> pose a problem for either -mm or Linus' tree?

It depends who gets to Linus's tree first. If linux-release merges first,
I just revert the temp fix while adding the real fix. But the temp fix
should never have gone into Linus's tree in the first place.

If I merge before linux-release, I guess Linus has some conflict resolving
to do when he pulls from linux-release. That's OK for an obvious
two-liner, but would get out of control for more substantial things.

Neither solution is acceptable, really. I suspect the idea of pulling
linux-release into mainline won't work very well, and that making it a
backport tree would be more practical.