On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:13:03PM +0100, Oliver Falk wrote: > Dave Jones wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:37:27PM +0100, Oliver Falk wrote: >> > * Update Makefile.config to generate *alpha.config and >> *alpha-smp.config > > I haven't attached this part, since it's quite clear how it will look > like... > >> > * Remove alphaev56 from spec, since nobody will support this subarch >> > * Add a alpha section (%ifarch alpha), defining all the with_* macros >> > - We/I should maybe rework this part... >> > * Fix alpha target, and kernel_image* > > See attached specfile diffs (diff -cp). > > Notes: > * buildid change will of course not go to the cvs > * The with_* defines, might be better!? Suggestions are welcome! > * Source100 and Source101 for config-alpha* is OK for you? > * Alpha-specific patches that are commented out will be removed before > commit! > * Changelog will be updated to give more information. > >> > * Add config-alpha-generic and config-alpha-smp >> >> ok > > Attached as config-alpha-generic-$DIST > > config-alpha-smp contains only the following two lines: > CONFIG_SMP=y > CONFIG_NR_CPUS=16 > > I know you're going to tell me that I have to rework the > config-alpha-generic to use the config-generic. > > And yes, I'll do that as the next step, but for now, may I check it in > as it is? > >> > * And the current patches for F-9: >> > - linux-2.6.28-alpha-exec_range.patch >> > + Add execshield dummy functions for alpha >> >> just fold this into the regular execshield diff > > No problem. Since it's a diff against alpha/include/asm/pgalloc.h, I can > easily integrate this hunk into the execshield.patch. > >> > - linux-2.6-alpha-pci_get_bus_and_slot.patch >> > + include pci_get_bus_and_slot for alpha >> >> upstreamable? > > Yes. Also one of the next steps. :-) > >> > - linux-2.6-alpha-eepro100-cleanup.patch >> > + cleanup extraneous "freeing mc frame" message from driver >> > + This is obsolete (with >= 2.6.29) AFAIK, driver dropped!? >> > + Since new driver (e100) shows the same problem, Jay E. will try >> > to fix the new one and/or get in contact with upstream >> > maintainer >> >> yeah, e100 should support everything that eepro100 did now, and >> do a better job at it too. > > Well, e100 has problems on alpha, that's why we used to patch eepro100. > However. I guess we can fix this together with upstream. Jay, you > volunteered!? :-) > >> > - linux-2.6.28-alpha-pci.h.patch >> > - linux-2.6-alpha-pci.c.patch >> > + Platform support for /proc/bus/pci/X/Y mmap()s >> > + define HAVE_PCI_MMAP >> > + extern int pci_mmap_page_range >> >> also upstreamable? > > Yes, of course! If Jay hasn't already done that, we really need to. > >> > I can send patches to fedora-kernel-list tomorrow, when I'm back to >> > office. Also a diff to the current F-9 and F-10 spec. >> >> cool. I'll add your acl. It'll take a while to propagate anyway. > > Thx a lot Dave for your trust! > > I'm not going to commit anything until I have your *GO*... > This all looks fine to me. Sorry to have been so blunt, but I'm fairly new to Fedora, so I didn't know you were actually working on stuff, and not just someone asking for random commit access. I wouldn't worry too much about the linux-2.6- namespace for patches, I'd prefer if they were just alpha-$patch.patch. davej, thoughts? regards, Kyle _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list