Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261158AbVCML4Z (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:56:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261164AbVCML4Z (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:56:25 -0500 Received: from aun.it.uu.se ([130.238.12.36]:26355 "EHLO aun.it.uu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261158AbVCML4X (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:56:23 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:56:11 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200503131156.j2DBuBFv015778@harpo.it.uu.se> From: Mikael Pettersson To: akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.6.11-mm3] perfctr ia32 syscalls on x86-64 fix Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 994 Lines: 22 On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:55:49 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >It would be nice to start folding these patches together a bit to reduce >such problems, but that's rather non-trivial because there is no way to >simply join these patches together which maintains a sensible sequencing. > >If we're going to do anything then it's either a major refactoring, or >simply wham the entire feature into a single diff. That diff could then be >split into four patches: core, ppc, x86 and x86_64. We would lose the >layering between ye olde perfctr, the inheritance implementation, the syfs >API, etc. I could live with that. > >What do you think? At my end there is already just "the current version" (with history in cvs) so merging is fine with me. /Mikael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/