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

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Chris Wright 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?

Just need to make sure <whomever> aware of this, when you push to Linus.

In most cases, of dire fixes, they should just go into linux-release, 
and then get pulled into linux-2.6.

For a few cases, like this one, the quick fix will hit linux-release and 
linux-2.6 before the better fix, so no big deal.

In a few rare cases, you will need to create a "for-upstream" tree that 
handles the conflict before it get pushed to Linus.

	Jeff