Re: [PULL] x86 cpumask work

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

> On Friday 13 March 2009 11:27:43 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: 
> > > Missing a core patch (it even got a compile warning with that 
> > > config).
> > So it's manual work and sometimes i notice them amongst a 
> > boatload of other warnings, sometimes i dont.
> 
> Me too :( I thought you were starting a de-warning tree?  I'd 
> be happy to send you patches (particularly, exporting 
> deprecated symbols should not give a warning!).

Yeah - i have a de-warning tree, but it's not yet fully up and 
running for -tip qa automation.

> > > But there's something else wrong.  Firing up my 64-bit 
> > > test box now.
> > 
> > Great - so you can reproduce. Thanks,
> 
> Yep, and I'm running some stress tests as well now.
> 
> Perhaps throw away that tree, and I'll feed you a new one (the 
> core patch needs to go at the front), but I can work either 
> way.

Ok, i dropped it back to d95c357.

Suggestion for future workflow: we wouldnt have these somewhat 
stressful (and stressful to you mostly!), large hickups and 
history-less trees if you sent stuff more gradually and not so 
close to the merge window. You exposed some of your changes to 
linux-next but that's not nearly enough testing in practice for 
x86-affecting patches.

	Ingo