From: Rusty Russell
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 05:52:42 EST
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 15:40, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:16:53AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > How about debugging a known problem instead of whining how your arch was
> > broken by a simple change required to consolidate early parameter
> > parsing sanely?
> I did that, found that your patch causes the breakage, reverted it
> and it worked again. Sorry I don't have time right now to hunt
> for bugs in your patches.
> Frankly such cleanups are more something for 2.7 anyways, they seem
> to be misplaced currently when we're all else trying to stabilize 2.6.
> After all it does not fix any bugs, just adds new ones.
For the record: I was surprised to see early_param() patches go into the
-mm tree during 2.6. However, the way they were done was too invasive
and introduced a third parser in the kernel. I reworked them to be
minimal and use existing parsers: this patch is 1/2 in that series.
> > I don't have an x86_64 box, and I ask *again* if someone who does can
> > take a look at the problem...
> I would propose you defer these patches to 2.7 and then we try again.
> Hopefully there will be more time then to hunt issues in all kinds
> of cleanup patches.
I support that, if there's no real need for an arch-indep early_param().
Anyone who quotes me in their signature is an idiot -- Rusty Russell
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/