Re: [gentoo-dev] Patch for nvidia-drivers 367.35-r1 for kernels > 4.7.0

[Natanael Olaiz]

s/you are commented/you commented/

:)

On 6 August 2016 at 12:25, Natanael Olaiz <nolaiz@×××××.com> wrote:

> David,
>
> Thank you for your patch. It was a good example to answer my question.
>
> But about the patch itself, I see that you are commented the code for
> radix_tree_empty(...). In my patch I renamed it and it only usage instead,
> so I'm sure it's calling the same code. I don't know the expected
> compatibility with the kernel function implementation... But without
> knowing the specific code for neither the nvidia driver nor the kernel, I
> think the rename is safer...
>
>
> Best regards,
> Natanael
>
>
> On 6 August 2016 at 04:50, David Haller <gentoo@×××××××.de> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2016, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> >On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Natanael Olaiz <nolaiz@×××××.com> wrote:
>> >> I know that. But the patch should be applied *only* for versions of
>> kernels
>> >> 4.7+. So, I'm asking how is the policy for that.
>> >
>> >If you're asking for policy: The Gentoo packaging policy is not to do
>> >conditional patching. Instead, modify the patch so that the resulting
>> >code works for both cases. This can generally be accomplished via
>> >pre-processor macros.
>>
>> My patch does it like that. See
>>  https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/message/baa36d14d8c
>> dbf58404267ee2ffd34ea
>> Just dumping the attached patch into
>> /etc/portage/patches/x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-367.35/
>> (and making it readable for the portage user) is sufficient.
>>
>> HTH,
>> -dnh
>>
>> --
>> Every feature is a bug, unless it can be turned off.  -- Karl Heuer
>
>
>