From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-04-24 18:46:58
|
On Sunday 24 April 2005 18:51, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > > Btw, many of the code movement things are just cut'n'paste things, so for > > them there is no reason to delay them. Now we are going to merge them for > > 2.6.13-rc1 (for .12 it's too late), but every other delay increases the > > possibility that we fix somehow the code we are moving and forget to do > > the same on the moved code. > Yeah, that's a concern. I'm holding onto the code movement because I want > to look at the os interface that resulted from it, and see if it can be > cleaned up. Happy for that. > > Finally, about the syscall table patches for s390: I'm going to merge > > into -mm the syscall table patches you can find in the last -devel > > snapshot I put on my page (the uploaded ones maybe are out-of-date, but > > I'll cc you on patches). > What patch is this? All I see is a patch which makes some small fixes to > the sys_call_table. No, I don't mean -bs, I mean the DEVEL snapshot. It's under patches/devel-guest/, and other will follow (when I have broad-band). However the updated patches are flying to you (plural, since they also relate with s390 port). > > They entirely remove the UML syscall table to replace it with the > > $(SUBARCH) one (there is some hand-work to do for each subarch but it's > > much less than before). While doing this I also fixed various little bugs > > about this subject. > > Don't send that anywhere until I've seen it. Your description of it makes > me nervous. I'm sending it for -mm only, and it's marked as such. Also it won't silently slip since it acts a bit on i386. -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Skype user "PaoloGiarrusso" Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |