Hello:
[Please CC me on replies]
What is the status of PIC mode patches [1] by Andrew de Quincey;
are they still needed? The -ac / -pac trees still have them.
Regards;
?zkan Sezer
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300001&r=1&w=2
Also see:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300002&r=1&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426100003&r=1&w=2
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 04:35, O.Sezer wrote:
> Hello:
> [Please CC me on replies]
>
> What is the status of PIC mode patches [1] by Andrew de Quincey;
> are they still needed? The -ac / -pac trees still have them.
If the 1st one is needed, I want to know about it.
The 2nd and 3rd have been in for a long time.
> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300001&r=1&w=2
> Also see:
This is Andrew's PIC-fallback patch. This is probably
the most effective and well written patch that I've
refused to integrate;-) There are two reasons.
1. it works for some systems, but breaks others.
2. when it works, it hides a failure. Windows doesn't
have that failure. We'd rather see the failure, fix it
and have Linux work as well as Windows.
BTW. SuSE picked up this patch in SL9.0, though I don't
know if they still use it.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300002&r=1&w=2
This has been in the base for about 5 months. But
Luming Yu found a better way to handle this issue and
his patch was integrated into 2.4 and 2.6 in the
last week:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1590
We'll probably delete the original retry code
in an upcoming cleanup.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426100003&r=1&w=2
This patch by Jun Nakajima was pulled into the base
about 5 months ago. It was key to getting VIA systems
to work.
cheers,
-Len