Re: [PATCH 2/3] m68k: compile fix - ADBREQ_RAW missing declaration

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 06:51:40PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Al Viro wrote:
> > > So who should I put as the author?  You or Geert (or whatever attributions
> > > might have been in said big patch)?  Incidentally,  ADBREQ_RAW had leaked
> > > into mainline (sans definition) in 2.3.45-pre2, which was Feb 13 2000, i.e.
> > > more than 1.5 year before your commit, so there's quite a chunk of history
> > > missing...
> > 
> > I'd say Geert, but it probably comes from the Mac tree. Anyway, it 
> > wouldn't be such a bad idea to ask him first why it's in his postponed 
> > queue:

Indeed, usually there's a good reason for being in that state instead of not
being merged ;-)

> > http://linux-m68k-cvs.ubb.ca/~geert/linux-m68k-2.6.x-merging/POSTPONED/130-adbraw.diff
> > 
> > My guess it needs some ack from the ppc people.
> 
> It doesn't - behaviour in case when ADBREQ_RAW is not passed in flags had
> been obviously unchanged.  And only m68k passes ADBREQ_RAW in there.
> So no, it doesn't affect ppc at all.

Even if behavior is unchanged, this doesn't mean that people like their code
being modified behind their back...

Anyway, last time I tried to bring this up with the union of Mac and PowerMac
guys, no one seemed to remember why ADBREQ_RAW was really needed...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/