Re: [PATCH} x86_64 PM_TRACE support.

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:01:34 -0400 Dave Jones wrote:

> On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 04:32:54PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> 
> Hi Nigel,
> 
>  > As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
>  > prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
>  > and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
>  > come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
>  > error primarily in that:
>  > 
>  > * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef 
>  >   CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
>  > * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
>  >   CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
>  > * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
>  >   include/linux/resume-trace.h.
>  > 
>  > We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
>  > depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
>  > Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
> 
> Can you post a copy of this that isn't mangled by quoted-printable encoding?
> Whilst it looks fine in my MUA, the diff ends up looking like..

yep :(

http://www.xenotime.net/linux/patches/x8664-pm-trace-support.patch

in case Nigel is asleep.


> I'm beginning to think we really need a Documentation/Unhorking-MUAs-HOWTO
> judging by the amount of broken encodings we seem to get to lkml these days.


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***