public inbox for linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86_64-mm-always-use-physical-delivery-mode-on-8-cpus vs git-acpi
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:58:12 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200701282158.12540.lenb@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070127142031.041d3239.akpm@osdl.org>

On Saturday 27 January 2007 17:20, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 04:29:57 -0500
> Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 26 January 2007 20:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 
> > > The new stuff which just landed in Len's tree caused a huge mess in
> > > arch/x86_64/kernel/genapic.c:clustered_apic_check() when applying
> > > ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt/patches/always-use-physical-delivery-mode-on-8-cpus
> > > on top of it.
> > 
> > The ACPI change this cleanup patch is conflicting with is quite small:
> > 
> > ------------------------- arch/x86_64/kernel/genapic.c -------------------------
> > index b007433..0b3603a 100644
> > @@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ void __init clustered_apic_check(void)
> >  	 * Some x86_64 machines use physical APIC mode regardless of how many
> >  	 * procs/clusters are present (x86_64 ES7000 is an example).
> >  	 */
> > -	if (acpi_fadt.revision > FADT2_REVISION_ID)
> > -		if (acpi_fadt.force_apic_physical_destination_mode) {
> > +	if (acpi_gbl_FADT.header.revision > FADT2_REVISION_ID)
> > +		if (acpi_gbl_FADT.flags & ACPI_FADT_APIC_PHYSICAL) {
> >  			genapic = &apic_cluster;
> >  			goto print;
> >  		}
> > > In fact the ACPI change has trashed a fair slice of Andi's pending tree.
> > > 
> > > I think I'll revert to yesterday's git-acpi, let you guys sort it all out.
> > 
> > Send me a version of the always-use-physical-delivery-mode-on-8-cpus patch
> > that applies to Linus' tree (the one above doesn't), and I'll be happy to apply
> > the 2-line diff above to it.
> > 
> 
> OK, so I took another look.  This ACPI update does extensive damage to
> Andi's pending queue.  I fixed four patches, dropped four or five more, hit
> more problems then gave up again.  I'll go back to Thursday's git-acpi
> again.
> 
> Longer-term, I expect Andi will merge before acpi does, and you're looking
> at a fairly large amount of fixing after that happens.

Exactly what patches from Andi do I need to merge on top of to get the ACPI tree into -mm?

thanks,
-Len

  reply	other threads:[~2007-01-29  2:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-27  1:24 x86_64-mm-always-use-physical-delivery-mode-on-8-cpus vs git-acpi Andrew Morton
2007-01-27  9:29 ` Len Brown
2007-01-27  9:38   ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-27 22:20   ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-29  2:58     ` Len Brown [this message]
2007-01-29  6:38       ` Andrew Morton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200701282158.12540.lenb@kernel.org \
    --to=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=ak@muc.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox