On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 09:42:53AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > Tony, Nan Hai, do you have any thoughts on merging this > > series into ia64 test? Its really far to big to be managed > > as a single unit. I would be much more comfortable if > > we could track small incremental changes. Even the diff > > between the current and previous version (as below) is quite large. > > I'm open to suggestions. My current inclination is to abandon the > existing kexec/kdump patches that are currently in my test tree[1] and > replace them with the latest set of patches. So a re-diff of all that > is considered good against 2.6.18 would be ideal for that. I believe that the patch that Nanhai posted a few days ago is currently the best candidate we have. That could just go straight in. Alternatively, I can easily make a single patch that moves your test tree to that point without having to revert the kexec patches that you have already merged. > Breaking the patch into some smaller pieces would also be good, > but I don't think this needs to be taken to extremes (just define > a few basic areas and split the patch ... I don't thing it is > worth spending days/weeks to split this into a sequence of 37 individually > crafted patches, with the kernel being fully functional at every > one of the 36 intermediate points). Understood. My main concern is being able to track changes moving forward. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|