On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 08:58:49AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 02:52:52PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 09:32:35PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > These are the minimum changes required to get the code to build > > > statically in the kernel. It's necessary to do this first so that we > > > can empirically determine that future cleanup patches aren't changing > > > the generated object code. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This doesn't apply to my latest tree :( > > Ah, ok. I'll rebase this series on the staging tree. > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/Makefile > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/Makefile > > > @@ -65,3 +65,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_XILLYBUS) += xillybus/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DGNC) += dgnc/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DGAP) += dgap/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_MTD_SPINAND_MT29F) += mt29f_spinand/ > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO_SKEIN) += skein/ > > > > Care to align these up with the way this file is formatted? > > Of course, not sure what happened there (well, other than the obvious > :-P) > > > And I have no objection to taking the drivers/staging/ patches, the > > script looks useful, but I can't take it through the staging tree, > > sorry. > > Ok, I'll pull that out as a separate branch. Do you mind taking a > series that depends on a topic branch from another tree? We do it a lot > in arm-soc, but I'm not sure how popular that is elsewhere. It's not a dependancy at all, and I don't take git pull requests for the staging tree, just email patches, sorry. So just resend these patches thanks. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
