From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760168AbYDUPmx (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:42:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755439AbYDUPmo (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:42:44 -0400 Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:37340 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755409AbYDUPmn (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:42:43 -0400 Subject: Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error From: James Bottomley To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Adrian Bunk , Alexey Starikovskiy , tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <480C8FD6.3030700@zytor.com> References: <20080421000238.GD26897@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080421085314.GI26897@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080421120054.GA6788@elte.hu> <480C8FD6.3030700@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:42:38 -0500 Message-Id: <1208792559.3640.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-4.fc8) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:00 -0400, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > >> I shouldn't send bug reports at 3 in the morning... > >> > >> Attached is the .config for both Voyager build errors I reported. > > > > thanks, the three patches below should fix it. > > > > i ended up excluding Voyager configs from our test space some time ago > > (and VISWS as well - there's one more visws fix in x86.git), that's how > > this broke. These subarchitectures seem not to be used at all and the > > code wont boot on normal PCs. We could mark it BROKEN but the fix seems > > simple in any case. I did actually try to avoid these problems by booting the -mc tree on voyager, but I note that none of these issues showed up in that tree the last time I did this (admittedly about 3 weeks ago because of various conferences etc). > I talked to jejb about this, and pretty much the consensus was that if > it breaks, mark it BROKEN, and let him come back and catch up. Under > those conditions, I'm willing to keep it in the tree. I didn't say mark it as BROKEN ... I did say I'd catch up. However, it's usually best to begin trying to fix voyager around the -rc1 phase since that's when the tree becomes stable again. > VISWS is another matter. It's entirely possible I have the only > remaining VISWS in my garage; we have at least not been able to locate > another. Not that we have tried all that hard. > > If there are no VISWS' left, we should just unload the code. I certainly don't have one. I just designed the subarchitectures to be able to support it because it was a bit far away from x86 references, and Andrey Panin was interested in supporting it at the time ... if he's no longer doing that, then it can be removed. James