From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: linux-next: cpufreq tree build failure Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:57:44 +0100 Message-ID: <200902052157.45344.trenn@suse.de> References: <20090205185420.38214a06.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <200902051047.56609.trenn@suse.de> <20090205174536.GA6358@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54730 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751584AbZBEU5l (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:57:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090205174536.GA6358@redhat.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dave Jones Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 05 February 2009 06:45:36 pm Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:47:56AM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > On Thursday 05 February 2009 08:54:20 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > Today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig) failed like this: > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.o: In function > > > `minimum_sampling_rate': (.opd+0x30): multiple definition of > > > `minimum_sampling_rate' > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.o:(.opd+0x18): first defined here > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.o: In function > > > `minimum_sampling_rate': drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c:64: > > > multiple definition of > > > > `.minimum_sampling_rate' > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.o:drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c: > > >62: > > > > first defined here > > > > > Caused by commit f935195b8a341d7ffdf600dd98a657f2f09b7908 ("[CPUFREQ] > > > ondemand/conservative: sanitize sampling_rate restrictions"). > > > > > > I have reverted that commit for today. > > > > Dave, I have found another minor issue and will send you three patches. > > Two cleanups and the third fixing this one as on top patch. > > > > Decide yourself what way is best to add things (revert and re-add or > > just add the three I post). > > The problem of the on top approach could be that if this is merged > > to linux next you could have a non-building condition if you compile in > > I added the 'static's directly to the patches, and regenerated the tree > on kernel.org > For other stuff, unless it's a build-fix, send an incremental diff ? Yes, will do so. But if possible, I'd like to wait for Ingo's printk_once function popping up in linux-next. How frequently are linux-next patches pulled back into the cpufreq tree? Anyway, I am going to look at your tree in a week or two and send something then. It's only about a cleaned up message in broken BIOS case, that should not hurt in linux-next for a while. Thank you both, Thomas