Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:58:47 -0800 | From | Mike Travis <> | Subject | Re: [PULL] cpumask tree |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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
Thanks! Am working on that now.
Mike
| |