On Monday 22 January 2001  1:50 pm, Ben Harris wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > OK, lets look again at the idea of fixing config.  Maybe it's not too
> > hard after all.  The following is *totally* untested, but I think it
> > would do what was required....
>
> That looks reasonable (apart from the name of the new argument being
> different in two places).  Anyway, I've sent a message to tech-kern about
> it, since it's not an arm32-specific problem.

Yep it looks good, happily does a make depend, and running make it's rebuilt 
a few .o's (which might be why I can't boot :)

How does this get pushed into current?  or should it be sent to tech-kern on 
the .s v .S thread?

Cheers,
Chris