* Ingo Molnar | 2009-03-14 12:47:32 [+0100]: >thanks, looks good. We can apply #1 to -tip just fine - but a >drivers/crypto/ change should go via the crypto tree. Can the >crypto tree apply #2 without having #1 right away? [i.e. will it >still build and boot fine - even though the padlock >functionality might not be fully present on 32-bit? ] Yep, it is fine. #1 in, #2 not will not result in any difference to what we have now. #2 in, #1 not will result in "padlock not detected" while loading the module and -ENODEV. >Then in 2.6.30 once both the x86 tree and the crypto tree are >merged we'll have both changes combined. > >Does that sound good? I'm fine with this, but last word is Herbert's :) > Ingo Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
