Oops, previous message got sent before I had typed anything!
Andi, I just wanted to be clear that my patch is not a VIA workaround,
it is a VIA workaround workaround. So please don't remove my patch
while leaving in the original VIA workaround. That will break our
platform, and possibly others.
I don't know if there's an easy way to have both the VIA workaround
(Natalie's original patch) and the VIA workaround workaround (my
patch) in a more unified construct.
I believe our platform would work fine with the removal of my patch
_and_ the VIA patch. But, as you say, what about VIA?
-kimball
On 4/26/06, Kimball Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Andi,
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06, Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 25 April 2006 21:53, Brown, Len wrote:
> > > I'd rather see the original irq-renaming patch
> > > and its subsequent multiple via workaround patches
> > > reverted than to further complicate what is becoming
> > > a fragile mess.
> >
> > Sorry rechecking - i already got the patch now. You want me to drop it again?
> >
> > I guess we could drop it all, but VIA must still work afterwards.
> > How would we do that?
> >
> > -Andi
> >
>
-
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]
