From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:27:10 +1030 Message-ID: <200901051727.11403.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20090105143239.08b1a060.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:38342 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751179AbZAEG5R (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2009 01:57:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090105143239.08b1a060.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Mike Travis , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Lameter On Monday 05 January 2009 14:02:39 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Rusty, > > Today's linux-next merge of the rr tree got a conflict in kernel/module.c > between commit d3794979a8a80c222ce9d016a6dfc4bed36965d0 ("Zero based > percpu: infrastructure to rebase the per cpu area to zero") from the > tip-core tree and the cpualloc patches from the rr tree. That's a sweet patch, but there are a few issues with it. Main one is that noone sets CONFIG_HAVE_ZERO_BASED_PER_CPU yet. Is there more sitting outside the tree, Mike? 1) Author is wrong. This is Christoph's, not Mike's. 2) module.c now includes asm/sections.h twice. 3) We do still need RELOC_HIDE: it's for the compiler, not us. It can otherwise make assumptions about pointers remaining within objects. 4) Defining SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR for UP, and DEFINE_PER_CPU_FIRST are currently unnecessary. I assume for future patches, but I want to see them! Thanks, Rusty.