On Sat, 12 May 2018 10:50:42 +0300 Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 05/11/2018 05:13 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > >>> > >>> As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get > >>> into 4.17. > >> > >> How much confidence do we have that we don't need to end up reverting > >> patch 2 as well? I rather be pushing patch 2 to 4.18 so that there's > >> more time for testing and waiting for feedback. > > > > Although I do not have the hardware to test the builds, I worked > > closely with the OP in the bug at b.r.c noted above. From that effort, > > it became clear what configuration variables were missing to cause the > > x86 failures. Patch 2 satisfies the requirement, and prevents the > > build problems found by the MIPS users. Both patches are needed in > > 4.17. > > And I assume Michael is ok with this approach as well as I haven't heard > from him. I'll then push both of these to 4.17. > Yes, I'm OK with the patch, if we have a third patch that cleans up the PCI_DRIVERS_LEGACY dependency by moving it to SSB_PCICORE_HOSTMODE where it belongs. (This doesn't need to go into the stable tree.) We currently implicitly get that via dependency chain, so this is OK for now as-is. -- Michael
Attachment:
pgpjuJB3stpEw.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
