Re: [VOYAGER] fix build broken by shift to smp_ops

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 13:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:02:42 -0700
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Does "that" have name?  I can find no patch in -mm which appears to have
> > > anything to do with SMP consolidation, and this patch applies cleanly to
> > > the current -mm lineup.
> > >   
> > Sorry, I thought you'd picked this up:
> > 
> > 
> > Subject: i386: move common parts of smp into their own file
> > 
> > Several parts of kernel/smp.c and smpboot.c are generally useful for
> > other subarchitectures and paravirt_ops implementations, so make them
> > available for reuse.
> 
> Confused.  This patch conflicts a lot with James's one (which I named
> voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch).

> If your "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" also fixes
> Voyager and is preferred then cool, but a) the changelog should tell us
> that and b) could James please test it?

OK, let me try a brief history.  A while ago Eric pointed out that the
smp ops patch in -mm would break voyager.  So we worked on (and tested a
fix for it).  Part of the fix was the prerequisite patch "i386: move
common parts of smp into their own file".  The fix on top of this was
called "i386: fix voyager build" which actually fixed the voyager build.

I've been nagging Andi for a couple of weeks now to get these two
upstream.  Finally he replied that the he wasn't planning on sending the
precursor "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" upstream
for 2.6.22.  So I had to do a patch that would fix the voyager build
without this ... which is what you have.

So, you either need the single patch you have, or the other two entitled

"i386: move common parts of smp into their own file".
"i386: fix voyager build" 

James