On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 08:27:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > So it
> > looks like you've found a fix for a patch which isn't actually in -mm any
> > more. I sent that fix to Greg the other day.
>
> Actually, gregkh-pci-altix-msi-support-git-ia64-fix.patch fix`es
> git-ia64.patch when gregkh-pci-altix-msi-support.patch is also applied, so
> it's not presently useful to either Greg or Tony. I'll take care of it,
> somehow..
>
I think what happened here is that I submitted a patchset for msi
abstractions (and others posted a couple of subsequent bugfix incrementals),
but these were not taken into the 2.6.16 base 'cause of their invasiveness.
These patches touched the tioce_provider.c file.
Then I submitted another patch which touched the tioce_provider.c file, and
it looks like I probably based this file on the previous msi versions which
were being held back, so in order for everything to build, you need all of
the msi patches applied first.
What's the preferred way to handle this ... fix the current ia64 build and
then resubmit the msi patches relative to that base?
Mark
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
