From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1757351AbZBKPM4@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757351AbZBKPM4 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:12:56 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754180AbZBKPMq
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:12:46 -0500
Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.179.29]:60429 "EHLO relay.sgi.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754009AbZBKPMp (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:12:45 -0500
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:12:43 -0600
From: Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
       Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
       linux-ia64 <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-next <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SGI IA64 UV: fix ia64 build error in the linux-next tree
Message-ID: <20090211151243.GC15814@sgi.com>
References: <20090209162520.GA4882@sgi.com> <20090210132555.be1c1462.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090211150103.GA15814@sgi.com> <20090211150536.GE10525@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090211150536.GE10525@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:05:36PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:25:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0600
> > > Dean Nelson <dcn@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Fix the ia64 build error that occurs in the linux-next tree by introducing
> > > > an ia64 version of uv.h.  Additionally, clean up the usage of is_uv_system().
> > > 
> > > Would I be correct in believing that this repairs (and should be folded
> > > into)
> > > 
> > >   commit 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a
> > >   Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > >   Date:   Wed Jan 21 11:30:07 2009 +0100
> > > 
> > >       x86: uv cleanup, build fix #2
> > > 
> > > ?
> > >
> > > (it looks like 5b221278d61e3907a5e4104a844b63bc8bb3d43a should be
> > > folded into something else, too.  What hath we wrought?)
> > 
> > Yes, it does fix an issue introduced by:
> > 
> >    commit: bdbcdd48883940bbd8d17eb01172d58a261a413a
> >    author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> >    date:   Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:26:06 +0000
> > 
> > 	x86: uv cleanup
> > 
> > which the commit you mention above attempted to fix.
> > 
> > I'll leave it to you and Ingo to determine whether my patch should be
> > folded into Ingo's or Tejun's patch.
> > 
> > Ingo, I see that you've applied my patch to your tip tree. What are
> > your thoughts on Andrew's question?
> 
> What question was that? Folding back across that distance is not possible
> in a Git workflow. I do regular cross-builds - the build bug did not trigger
> with the ia64 defconfig.

The question was the one of folding the patch back. And by your response, I
see we'll be leaving things as they are.

Thanks,
Dean