Re: [wli@holomorphy.com: Re: NMU: kernel]
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Because they have a single upstream, while the kernel has several
> > > for all the architectures.
> >
> > That's bullshit. You have a single upstream and patches vs it from
> > different sources.
>
> I regard the linux-mips.org CVS as MIPS upstream, and I don't want to
> handle patch conflicts with architectures I know nothing about.
Apparently your regard does not extend to looking what's really in there.
Care to check the diff between linux-mips repository and upstream? Ralf
et.al. are doing a very good job keeping it in sync with 2.6; right now
it's pretty much vanilla 2.6.6 + patches in arch/mips, include/asm-mips +
changes in/additions of mips-only stuff in drivers/*, include/linux +
some noise they'd forgotten to drop (e.g. in fs/stat.c
- && !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_S390) && !defined(__hppa__) \
+ && !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_S390) && !defined(__hppa__) && !defined(__mips__) \
&& !defined(__arm__) && !defined(CONFIG_V850) && !defined(__powerpc64__) \
&& !defined(__mips__)
adding !defined(__mips__) even though it's already in there).
There are several contention points (fbmem.c, as usual) but they are trivial
to handle.
Please, have at least some respect to mips guys - they know what they are
doing and talk about "patch conflicts with architectures you know nothing
about" is a BS. Their stuff is well-behaving and localized enough to avoid
that.
Reply to: