From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762779AbYECJqT (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 May 2008 05:46:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759911AbYECJqM (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 May 2008 05:46:12 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:40381 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759910AbYECJqL (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 May 2008 05:46:11 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 11:45:51 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Adrian Bunk , "H. Peter Anvin" , Hiroshi Shimamoto , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: x86 git acpi issue? Message-ID: <20080503094551.GA10805@elte.hu> References: <481BAC6F.5090509@ct.jp.nec.com> <481BACEC.8080902@zytor.com> <20080503071332.GF5838@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sat, 3 May 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Commit afcab879e4044f952b7a031d5fd504e0feb7df41 is the commit where Ingo > > both _reverts_ his patch you describe in the x86 tree and additionally > > moves pci-$(CONFIG_ACPI) in exactly the way that causes this breakage. > > > > In the 4 hours between Ingo doing the += change and Ingo reverting his > > own patch in the x86 tree it was in a pull request to Linus, so the > > "queued up" patch is in Linus' tree but reverted in the x86 tree. > > > > I saw neither the patch changing the :='s to += on linux-kernel nor does > > "do not override the existing pci-y rule when adding visws or numaq > > rules." in the commit description give any indication what the actual > > problem was. > > > > It's also not obvious why the revert with the subject "visws: build fix" > > also moved the pci-$(CONFIG_ACPI) causing this bug here. > > Right. This Makefile is a nasty trap. I looked into it and the fix for > now is below. Long term this Makefile trickery needs to be cleaned up > to avoid trapping into this again. Thanks Thomas, i messed up that commit - i should have known that the NUMAQ build fix looked _too_ easy ;-) Ingo