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 13:51:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20070925175156.GG2769@redhat.com> References: <1E7A4807A136DF45AD33DB341D93C3BD1F0C19@msgswbmnmsp46.wellsfargo.com> <20070925073132.GA29127@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20070925143651.GA2769@redhat.com> <20070925095229.d1aec1a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070925165834.GE2769@redhat.com> <20070925100839.8d2e7b40.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070925172255.GL8127@redhat.com> <20070925103142.c93719b3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070925103142.c93719b3.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 10:31:42AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:22:55 -0400 Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > > > OK, here: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc5/2.6.21-rc5-mm3/broken-out/fix-x86_64-mm-sched-clock-share.patch > > > > > > So I guess what we want to do here is to revert that patch, test i386 > > > allnoconfig and then fix up anything which breaks. > > > > Nothing breaks for me with make ARCH=i386 bzImage on my x86-64 box > > (which should be the same as a native build). > > Was that with allnoconfig? yeah. > > The functions that complain in that patch header don't seem to actually > > exist in mainline at all. (`init_sched_clock' and `call_r_s_f') > > Did this patch perhaps jump the gun, and these are -mm only ? > > Could be that this patch fixed version 17 of sched-clock-share and we ended > up merging verion 56. It was awful. heh. I think just reverting that change for .23 makes sense. It doesn't seem that anything breaks by not having it there, and we know it definitly breaks arm at least. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk