Re: 2.6.31-rc7-git2: Reported regressions 2.6.29 -> 2.6.30

Rusty Russell
2009-08-27T10:53:20Z

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:06:47 am Andrew Morton wrote:
> So in my tree I reworked it so that the new `force' arg gets passed
> through appropriately. It compiles cleanly but I'd suggest that Len
> simply drop "misc:work_on_cpu-acpi" and we send it back to Rusty for
> some rechecking (sorry).

Sure. My main motivation is to get rid of cpumasks on the stack; while
there, I tried to fix this up properly.

> Rusty/Len: please work out why the title for that patch went silly.

git-quiltimport uses the patch names, and doesn't extract the title. I
assume that's what Stephen uses. I didn't rename the patch when I rewrote
it not to use work_on_cpu.

> Rusty, please self-administer smackings for
>
> struct set_throttling_info sti
> = { pr, p_throttling, t_state.target_state };
>
> these things always start out simple and end up not-simple, so some poor
> schmuck has to clean them up so stuff doesn't break.
>
> struct set_throttling_info sti = {
> .pr = pr,
> .p_throttling = p_throttling,
> .target_state = t_state.target_state,
> .force = force
> };
>
> is better!

Meh... same concept applies to function arguments, and we rely on typechecking
to catch that (though we have little choice in C).

> My linux-next repair job:

OK, I've dropped these from my tree entirely to avoid more problems.

Can you take them? They're not really at home in my tree.

arch-x86-kernel-acpi-cstatec-avoid-using-work_on_cpu.patch
misc:work_on_cpu-acpi.patch
misc:work_on_cpu-acpi-fix.patch
misc:work_on_cpu-dcdbas.patch

You can fetch them from http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/kernel/rr-latest/

(You'll want to rename the last three something sane...)

Thanks,
Rusty.