> I assume this was against 2.6.23. Please, it's not very useful to prepare > patches against such an old kernel. Even if the receiver were to fix te > patch up, there isn't much confidence that it will actually work at > compile-time and runtime. No, it wasn't, I diffed it against -rc1. I tested the Kconfig changes with "make ARCH=x86_64 menuconfig" and "make ARCH=i386 menuconfig". As far as I understand, the new x86 arch depends on being called as ARCH=i386 or ARCH=x86_64. I may have misunderstood how the x86 architecture works but hoped Rafael would know more and tell me if I was wrong. joahnnes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH (2.6.25) 1/2] hibernation: clean up Kconfig
- From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH (2.6.25) 1/2] hibernation: clean up Kconfig
- References:
- Re: [PATCH (2.6.25) 0/2] suspend/hibernate Kconfig cleanups
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH (2.6.25) 0/2] suspend/hibernate Kconfig cleanups
- From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH (2.6.25) 0/2] suspend/hibernate Kconfig cleanups
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- [PATCH (2.6.25) 1/2] hibernation: clean up Kconfig
- From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH (2.6.25) 1/2] hibernation: clean up Kconfig
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH (2.6.25) 0/2] suspend/hibernate Kconfig cleanups
- Prev by Date: RE: [PATCH 1/1] aacraid: don't assign cpu_to_le32(int) to u8
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -libata] nv_hardreset: update dangling reference to bugzilla entry
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH (2.6.25) 1/2] hibernation: clean up Kconfig
- Next by thread: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH (2.6.25) 1/2] hibernation: clean up Kconfig
- Index(es):
 |