Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 May 2007 14:10:23 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [VOYAGER] fix build broken by shift to smp_ops |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2007 15:54:18 -0500 > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote: > > >> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 13:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:02:42 -0700 >>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> >>>>> Does "that" have name? I can find no patch in -mm which appears to have >>>>> anything to do with SMP consolidation, and this patch applies cleanly to >>>>> the current -mm lineup. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Sorry, I thought you'd picked this up: >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: i386: move common parts of smp into their own file >>>> >>>> Several parts of kernel/smp.c and smpboot.c are generally useful for >>>> other subarchitectures and paravirt_ops implementations, so make them >>>> available for reuse. >>>> >>> Confused. This patch conflicts a lot with James's one (which I named >>> voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch). >>> >>> If your "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" also fixes >>> Voyager and is preferred then cool, but a) the changelog should tell us >>> that and b) could James please test it? >>> >> OK, let me try a brief history. A while ago Eric pointed out that the >> smp ops patch in -mm would break voyager. So we worked on (and tested a >> fix for it). Part of the fix was the prerequisite patch "i386: move >> common parts of smp into their own file". The fix on top of this was >> called "i386: fix voyager build" which actually fixed the voyager build. >> >> I've been nagging Andi for a couple of weeks now to get these two >> upstream. Finally he replied that the he wasn't planning on sending the >> precursor "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" upstream >> for 2.6.22. So I had to do a patch that would fix the voyager build >> without this ... which is what you have. >> > > uh, I suspected it was something like that. > > >> So, you either need the single patch you have, or the other two entitled >> >> "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file". >> "i386: fix voyager build" >> > > OK, thanks. I hereby propose that I send the below > (voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch) to Linus later today, > provided it passes local testing. > > All those in favour say aye? >
OK, but only if you don't want to put "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" in front of it, and remove the duplicated code. I could send you a third copy if you like.
J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |