Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:52:08 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PULL] cpumask tree |
| |
* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Saturday 03 January 2009 07:08:40 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > - architectures that have no __fls (8 out of 21) fail to build: > > > > arch/cris > > arch/frv > > arch/h8300 > > arch/m32r > > arch/m68k > > arch/mn10300 > > arch/xtensa > > Fixes pushed, m68k should be OK tho; is this actual compile test? You have > to look in include/asm-m68k to see __fls.
yeah, i stopped the tests after the first two build failures - the rest is a grep result from arch/*/, that's why include/asm-m68k/ was left out.
> > Rusty, would it be fine with you if we did all the remaining bits via > > tip/cpus4096? It's your tree and your bits and we wanted to send our > > remaining bits after your tree went to Linus but the conflict > > resolutions from Mike are valuable so i think we should reconsider the > > ordering. > > Yeah, no reason for us to do the merge twice. As long as it ends > upstream, I'm a happy camper.
great - lets do it that way then. I have pulled your fixes into the cpus4096 tree:
5ece5c5: xtensa: define __fls 5c134da: mn10300: define __fls 16a2062: m32r: define __fls 9ddabc2: h8300: define __fls ee38e51: frv: define __fls 0999769: cris: define __fls
Once we have figured out the CPU-hotplug lockdep splat (possibly due to Mike's changes not yours) i'll send it to Linus. Thanks,
Ingo
| |