s/you are commented/you commented/ :)
On 6 August 2016 at 12:25, Natanael Olaiz <nol...@gmail.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 <gen...@dhaller.de> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> On Fri, 05 Aug 2016, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> >On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Natanael Olaiz <nol...@gmail.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 > > >
