Subject: Re: drivers/x86 (Was: Re: linux-next: Tree for November 28 (misc/tc1100))

From: Len Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:29:14 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Len,
> > 
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:55:08 -0800 Randy Dunlap <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >
> > > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `drivers/misc/tc1100-wmi.o', needed by `drivers/misc/built-in.o'.
> > > 
> > > on allmodconfig & allyesconfig for i386.
> > > 
> > > On, moved to drivers/x86/.  Someone needs to clean up drivers/misc/Makefile.
> > 
> > Just wondering where the move to drivers/x86 was discussed, (reviewed 
> > and tested) and why the change is in the acpi tree and not the x86 
> > tree?
> 
> it will all conflict with pending bits in the x86 tree, so i'd prefer if 
> Len did this atomically after 2.6.29-rc1, without it having this 
> long-term breakage effect.

Is linux-next running into a conflict between x86 and the acpi 
tree today?

thanks,
-Len