Re: [git pull] x86 fixes

[Andres Salomon]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:49:07 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 5 May 2008, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:12:02 +0300
> > Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:35:42PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > Thomas Gleixner (2):
> > > >...
> > > >       x86: olpc build fix
> > > >...
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -1661,6 +1661,7 @@ config GEODE_MFGPT_TIMER
> > > >  
> > > >  config OLPC
> > > >  	bool "One Laptop Per Child support"
> > > > +	depends on MGEODE_LX
> > > >  	default n
> > > >  	help
> > > >...
> > > 
> > > This patch not only excludes OLPC and code depending on it
> > > (currently BATTERY_OLPC) from all{mod,yes}config builds (where it
> > > built fine) but also makes it very hard for generic distribution
> > > kernels to support the OLPC.
> > > 
> > > The commit comment does not indicate what the actual problem was,
> > > and if this patch was sent to linux-kernel I must have missed it.
> > > 
> > > What exactly was the build problem?
> > > Can we fix it in a less invasive way?
> > 
> > Also, it would've been nice to have been CC'd on this; I didn't see
> > it until it was committed.
> 
> Sorry, this should not have gone mainline. We had your patch queued
> (via Andrew) and it had testing failures, which we sent to you. One
> workaround was that build patch. When we dropped your patch we forgot
> to remove the workaround as well.
> 

Will it be removed, then?  I haven't seen any explanation of its
benefits, and Adrian's point about not catching build failures in
olpc_battery is valid.
--
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/