Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:45:04AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>...
>> Changes since 2.6.16-mm2:
>>...
>> +x86-clean-up-subarch-definitions.patch
>>...
>> x86 updates.
>>...
>
> The following looks bogus:
It is.
>
> config KEXEC
> bool "kexec system call (EXPERIMENTAL)"
> - depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> + depends on EXPERIMENTAL && (!X86_VOYAGER && SMP)
>
> The dependencies do now say that KEXEC is only offered for machines that
> are _both_ non-Voyager and SMP.
>
> Is the problem you wanted to express that a non-SMP Voyager config
> didn't compile?
>
> AFAIR I recently sent a patch disallowing non-SMP Voyager configurations
> that wasn't yet applied.
I think this cleanup patch is even going in the wrong direction. The
subarch code right now is a real pain because it is never clear when
you are calling a function with multiple definitions. Which makes it
really easy to break.
If we are going to refactor this can we please move in the direction
of a machine vector like alpha, ppc, and arm. I don't see the current
this cleanup making it any easier to tell there is code in a subarch.
Eric
-
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]
