From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Kernel compile bug in 2.6.22.6/7 {maybe more} ARM/StrongARM Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:58:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20070925165834.GE2769@redhat.com> References: <1E7A4807A136DF45AD33DB341D93C3BD1F0C19@msgswbmnmsp46.wellsfargo.com> <20070925073132.GA29127@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20070925143651.GA2769@redhat.com> <20070925095229.d1aec1a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070925095229.d1aec1a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andrew Morton Cc: Russell King , Greg.Chandler@wellsfargo.com, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, Andi Kleen On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:52:29AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:36:51 -0400 Dave Jones wrote: > > > > commit 184c44d2049c4db7ef6ec65794546954da2c6a0e > > Author: Andrew Morton > > Date: Wed May 2 19:27:08 2007 +0200 > > > > [PATCH] x86-64: fix x86_64-mm-sched-clock-share > > > > Fix for the following patch. Provide dummy cpufreq functions when > > CPUFREQ is not compiled in. > > > > Cc: Andi Kleen > > Cc: Dave Jones > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen > > > > I don't remember seeing any problem here, so I'm not entirely sure what > > this was supposed to be fixing. Perhaps the -mm-esque patch name > > will provide Andrew/Andi clues. It lacks sufficient information for > > my brain to guess what the problem was. > > Oh geeze. sched-clock-share went through about 18 different versions, was > merged, unmerged, remerged, dropped, etc. I don't recall at what stage in > this mess the above fix was inserted, sorry. > > > "Fix for the following patch" is also something that really should > > never be added to a git changelog too, because 'next' means absolutely > > nothing to me, nor I expect 99% of changelog readers. > > 184c44d2049c4db7ef6ec65794546954da2c6a0e should never have existed, > actually. I intended that Andi fold it into the base patch prior to > sending it to Linus. He normally does that, but it looks like this > one was handled as a standalone commit for some reason. So lets see what happens if we revert it ? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk