Hi Thomas, On Monday 26 May 2008 01:21:04 am Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 25 May 2008, Marin Mitov wrote: > > Hi Steven, > > Please do not trim CC lists without a good reason. [Restored it] > > > look at this patch, proposed by me and Ingo few month ago. > > I think it solves the problem you had fond, but unfortunately > > it had been lost (not included in the mainline). > > Yep, and it might be simply because the mail thread ended with: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/20/426 Could be. I remember to have answered to Ingo and he gave me a long lecture (thank him for it, I am a newbee) how to use quilt (because I had updated the patch by hand). In any case, the final version is: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/20/343 It applies to 2.6.25.4 with the following warnings: patching file arch/x86/lib/delay_32.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 40 (offset 2 lines). patching file arch/x86/lib/delay_64.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 28 (offset 2 lines). If you find the patch usefull I will rebase it to 2.6.26-rc3. > > > hi Marin, > > > > here's the patch we are carrying in x86.git at the moment - could you > > please update it with v3 of your code, and send us the patch (with the > > patch metadata kept intact, like you see it below)? Thanks, > > > > Ingo > > And there was no response. I just checked my x86 quilt archives and it > simply went into the "wait for update" category and got dropped > unfortunately. Here is an extract of the Ingo's mail sent to me at that time: From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> To: Marin Mitov <mitov@xxxxxxxxxxx> CC: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <snip> * Marin Mitov <mitov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The difference is explained in the reference above. Ingo asked me > > > to send the last changes: > > > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/20/426 > > > > > > and I have sent them to him. > > > > yep, and we've got that queued in the x86 tree. > > According to the attachment to the e-mail I have got from Andrew, the > patch "added to -mm tree" is not the patch (v.3): > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/20/343 > > but the patch (v.2) that has the flaw of a possible infinite > loop: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/18/5 > > If that is the intention, OK. the patch that got queued up in the x86 tree 3 days ago is the one below - your latest. Ingo <snip> As far as the patch (in the Ingo's mail) was really the latest, I decided all is OK. But it did not appeared in 2.6.24. That is the story as I know of it ;-) Best regards. Marin Mitov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
