[GIT PULL] debug macro changes for 2.6.36
Russell King - ARM Linux
linux at arm.linux.org.uk
Fri Jul 30 04:14:19 EDT 2010
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:23:56PM +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> > No. This change is far too big to come via git and will cause lots of
> > conflicts. I'm not fixing those conflicts when there's a better way
> > of handling this kind of change. There's also the matter of new platform
> > support which your patch based approach will miss.
> >
> > What I said about a week ago is that I wanted to do the removal of
> > .phys_io/.io_pg_offst via a script, which'll ensure that we hit
> > everything that's been merged for the next merge window.
>
> OK, but how do you want me to submit this? Provide the other three
> patches, plus a script to remove the machine_desc fields?
This is what I said eight days ago:
| BTW, this may cause lots of conflicts from SFR when the follow-on patch
| which deletes the initializers is merged. So rather than keeping this
| separate, it probably makes more sense for this patch to be merged into
| my tree now.
|
| ...
|
| BTW, it'd probably make more sense to do this as a script, something
| like this (untested):
|
| grep -rl MACHINE_START arch/arm | xargs --no-run-if-empty \
| sed -i '/MACHINE_START/,/MACHINE_END/ { /\.(phys_io|io_pg_offst)/d }'
|
| as over time the number of boards, etc, will change, and there's already
| context changes with these patches caused by the memblock stuff.
My intention was to have your patch merged - as patches - into an
appropriate place in my tree, and then just before the merge window
run that script to remove all the references to phys_io/io_pg_offst,
and finally, some time later, the members from the structure.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list