From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760176AbXENUya (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2007 16:54:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755373AbXENUyX (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2007 16:54:23 -0400 Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([64.109.89.108]:52880 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755752AbXENUyV (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2007 16:54:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [VOYAGER] fix build broken by shift to smp_ops From: James Bottomley To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , Andi Kleen , "Eric W. Biederman" In-Reply-To: <20070514133745.5bfc34ac.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1179158912.3703.47.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <46489818.4000408@goop.org> <20070514125946.0f74221c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4648C062.5090704@goop.org> <20070514133745.5bfc34ac.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 15:54:18 -0500 Message-Id: <1179176058.3703.85.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 13:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:02:42 -0700 > Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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