From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.16-rc6-mm2 uninitialized online_policy_cpus.bits[0] Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:35:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20060318173512.313a3453.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060318044056.350a2931.akpm@osdl.org> <200603191209.54946.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:24008 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751198AbWCSBiW (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:38:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200603191209.54946.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Venkatesh Pallipadi , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: > > Wonder if this is related to rc6's oops? > gcc 4.0.3 > > CC [M] arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.o > arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.c: In function > 'centrino_target': > include/linux/bitmap.h:170: warning: 'online_policy_cpus.bits[0]' is used > uninitialized in this function > CC [M] arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.o > arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: In function > 'acpi_cpufreq_target': > include/linux/bitmap.h:170: warning: 'online_policy_cpus.bits[0]' is used > uninitialized in this function Well conceivably. That warning is a consequence of my quick hack to make the ACPI tree compile on uniprocessor. ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.16-rc6/2.6.16-rc6-mm2/broken-out/git-acpi-up-fix.patch My patch is, as the compiler points out, wrong. I've sent that patch two or three times to the APCI maintainers, to the ACPI mailing list and to the author of the original buggy patch. The response thus far has been dead silence. IOW, despite my efforts, the ACPI tree has been in a non-compiling state on uniprocessor since February 11. This is pathetic. People are trying to get things done here and ACPI is getting in the way. But *need* to get the ACPI development tree out for people to test else we'll never be able to take another ACPI update into mainline.