| 1 |
David, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Thank you for your patch. It was a good example to answer my question. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
But about the patch itself, I see that you are commented the code for |
| 6 |
radix_tree_empty(...). In my patch I renamed it and it only usage instead, |
| 7 |
so I'm sure it's calling the same code. I don't know the expected |
| 8 |
compatibility with the kernel function implementation... But without |
| 9 |
knowing the specific code for neither the nvidia driver nor the kernel, I |
| 10 |
think the rename is safer... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Best regards, |
| 14 |
Natanael |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
On 6 August 2016 at 04:50, David Haller <gentoo@×××××××.de> wrote: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Hello, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2016, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 22 |
> >On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Natanael Olaiz <nolaiz@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 23 |
> >> I know that. But the patch should be applied *only* for versions of |
| 24 |
> kernels |
| 25 |
> >> 4.7+. So, I'm asking how is the policy for that. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> >If you're asking for policy: The Gentoo packaging policy is not to do |
| 28 |
> >conditional patching. Instead, modify the patch so that the resulting |
| 29 |
> >code works for both cases. This can generally be accomplished via |
| 30 |
> >pre-processor macros. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> My patch does it like that. See |
| 33 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/ |
| 34 |
> baa36d14d8cdbf58404267ee2ffd34ea |
| 35 |
> Just dumping the attached patch into |
| 36 |
> /etc/portage/patches/x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-367.35/ |
| 37 |
> (and making it readable for the portage user) is sufficient. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> HTH, |
| 40 |
> -dnh |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> -- |
| 43 |
> Every feature is a bug, unless it can be turned off. -- Karl Heuer |
Archives