lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: order functions in cpu/common.c and cpu/common_64.c
    On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
    >
    > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
    >
    >> > i've pushed out the broken tree into tip/tmp.master.broken (havent
    >> > updated tip/master with the breakage). I've removed the broken
    >> > printk in kernel/resource.c that Andrew found, see commit
    >> > 06e44f6af324 - so that's not the cause.
    >>
    >> i've double checked that 06e44f6af324 is applied. I'll bisect this.
    >
    > bisection came up with:
    >
    > # good: [8bfd9710] Merge branch 'x86/xsave'
    > # bad: [06e44f6a] IO resources: fix/remove printk
    > # good: [282a5f84] Merge branch 'irq/sparseirq'
    > # bad: [a0854a46] x86: make 32bit support show_msr like 64 bit
    > # good: [5031088d] x86: delay early cpu initialization until cpuid is
    > # good: [9d31d35b] x86: order functions in cpu/common.c and cpu/commo
    > # bad: [10a434fc] x86: remove cpu_vendor_dev
    >
    > | 10a434fcb23a57c385177a0086955fae01003f64 is first bad commit
    > | commit 10a434fcb23a57c385177a0086955fae01003f64
    > | Author: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
    > | Date: Thu Sep 4 21:09:45 2008 +0200
    > |
    > | x86: remove cpu_vendor_dev
    >
    > and the thing is, 10a434fc is way too big:
    >
    > | 15 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
    >
    > and it's not obvious at first (neither at second) sight what the problem
    > is. You really need to start doing much smaller patches for such
    > critical/hard-to-debug code areas.
    >
    could be alignment again...

    YH


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-04 22:11    [W:0.099 / U:88.940 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site