[pkgdb] kernel: oliver has requested commit

[Kyle McMartin]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:13:03PM +0100, Oliver Falk wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:37:27PM +0100, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>   > * Update Makefile.config to generate *alpha.config and 
>> *alpha-smp.config
>
> I haven't attached this part, since it's quite clear how it will look  
> like...
>
>>  > * Remove alphaev56 from spec, since nobody will support this subarch
>>  > * Add a alpha section (%ifarch alpha), defining all the with_* macros
>>  >    - We/I should maybe rework this part...
>>  > * Fix alpha target, and kernel_image*
>
> See attached specfile diffs (diff -cp).
>
> Notes:
> * buildid change will of course not go to the cvs
> * The with_* defines, might be better!? Suggestions are welcome!
> * Source100 and Source101 for config-alpha* is OK for you?
> * Alpha-specific patches that are commented out will be removed before  
> commit!
> * Changelog will be updated to give more information.
>
>>  > * Add config-alpha-generic and config-alpha-smp
>>
>> ok
>
> Attached as config-alpha-generic-$DIST
>
> config-alpha-smp contains only the following two lines:
> CONFIG_SMP=y
> CONFIG_NR_CPUS=16
>
> I know you're going to tell me that I have to rework the  
> config-alpha-generic to use the config-generic.
>
> And yes, I'll do that as the next step, but for now, may I check it in  
> as it is?
>
>>  > * And the current patches for F-9:
>>  > - linux-2.6.28-alpha-exec_range.patch
>>  >    + Add execshield dummy functions for alpha
>>
>> just fold this into the regular execshield diff
>
> No problem. Since it's a diff against alpha/include/asm/pgalloc.h, I can  
> easily integrate this hunk into the execshield.patch.
>
>>  > - linux-2.6-alpha-pci_get_bus_and_slot.patch
>>  >    + include pci_get_bus_and_slot for alpha
>>
>> upstreamable?
>
> Yes. Also one of the next steps. :-)
>
>>  > - linux-2.6-alpha-eepro100-cleanup.patch
>>  >    + cleanup extraneous "freeing mc frame" message from driver
>>  >    + This is obsolete (with >= 2.6.29) AFAIK, driver dropped!?
>>  >      + Since new driver (e100) shows the same problem, Jay E. will try
>>  >        to fix the new one and/or get in contact with upstream
>>  >        maintainer
>>
>> yeah, e100 should support everything that eepro100 did now, and
>> do a better job at it too.
>
> Well, e100 has problems on alpha, that's why we used to patch eepro100.  
> However. I guess we can fix this together with upstream. Jay, you  
> volunteered!? :-)
>
>>  > - linux-2.6.28-alpha-pci.h.patch
>>  > - linux-2.6-alpha-pci.c.patch
>>  >    + Platform support for /proc/bus/pci/X/Y mmap()s
>>  >      + define HAVE_PCI_MMAP
>>  >      + extern int pci_mmap_page_range
>>
>> also upstreamable?
>
> Yes, of course! If Jay hasn't already done that, we really need to.
>
>>  > I can send patches to fedora-kernel-list tomorrow, when I'm back to  
>>  > office. Also a diff to the current F-9 and F-10 spec.
>>
>> cool. I'll add your acl. It'll take a while to propagate anyway.
>
> Thx a lot Dave for your trust!
>
> I'm not going to commit anything until I have your *GO*...
>

This all looks fine to me. Sorry to have been so blunt, but I'm fairly
new to Fedora, so I didn't know you were actually working on stuff, and
not just someone asking for random commit access.

I wouldn't worry too much about the linux-2.6- namespace for patches,
I'd prefer if they were just alpha-$patch.patch. davej, thoughts?

regards, Kyle