Re: enable padlock on x86_64

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

* Ingo Molnar | 2009-03-14 12:47:32 [+0100]:

>thanks, looks good. We can apply #1 to -tip just fine - but a 
>drivers/crypto/ change should go via the crypto tree. Can the 
>crypto tree apply #2 without having #1 right away? [i.e. will it 
>still build and boot fine - even though the padlock 
>functionality might not be fully present on 32-bit? ]

Yep, it is fine.
#1 in, #2 not will not result in any difference to what we have now.
#2 in, #1 not will result in "padlock not detected" while loading the
module and -ENODEV.

>Then in 2.6.30 once both the x86 tree and the crypto tree are 
>merged we'll have both changes combined.
>
>Does that sound good?
I'm fine with this, but last word is Herbert's :)

>	Ingo

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/