Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.31-rc7-git2: Reported regressions 2.6.29 -> 2.6.30 | Date | Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:23:20 +0930 |
| |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:06:47 am Andrew Morton wrote: > So in my tree I reworked it so that the new `force' arg gets passed > through appropriately. It compiles cleanly but I'd suggest that Len > simply drop "misc:work_on_cpu-acpi" and we send it back to Rusty for > some rechecking (sorry).
Sure. My main motivation is to get rid of cpumasks on the stack; while there, I tried to fix this up properly.
> Rusty/Len: please work out why the title for that patch went silly.
git-quiltimport uses the patch names, and doesn't extract the title. I assume that's what Stephen uses. I didn't rename the patch when I rewrote it not to use work_on_cpu.
> Rusty, please self-administer smackings for > > struct set_throttling_info sti > = { pr, p_throttling, t_state.target_state }; > > these things always start out simple and end up not-simple, so some poor > schmuck has to clean them up so stuff doesn't break. > > struct set_throttling_info sti = { > .pr = pr, > .p_throttling = p_throttling, > .target_state = t_state.target_state, > .force = force > }; > > is better!
Meh... same concept applies to function arguments, and we rely on typechecking to catch that (though we have little choice in C).
> My linux-next repair job:
OK, I've dropped these from my tree entirely to avoid more problems.
Can you take them? They're not really at home in my tree.
arch-x86-kernel-acpi-cstatec-avoid-using-work_on_cpu.patch misc:work_on_cpu-acpi.patch misc:work_on_cpu-acpi-fix.patch misc:work_on_cpu-dcdbas.patch
You can fetch them from http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/kernel/rr-latest/
(You'll want to rename the last three something sane...)
Thanks, Rusty.
| |