[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: linux-next: voyager tree build failure
Hi James,

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:18:38 -0500 James Bottomley <> wrote:
> Thanks for finding this. The fix looks to be a dummy definition of this
> function for x86_64. The final fix (which has been under discussion)
> will be the elimination of safe_smp_processor_id() altogether.
> I've merged this into the
> [VOYAGER] x86: add {safe,hard}_smp_processor_id to smp_ops
> patch and respun the tree (and built it with an x86-64 cross compiler),
> so it should be safe to include next time around

Thanks. We will see how we do (later) in the morning.

Stephen Rothwell
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-09 18:09    [W:0.031 / U:8.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site