From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for November 12 (acpi/processor.h) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:40:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20091112094012.2ef401ad.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> References: <20091112195101.63263490.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rcsinet11.oracle.com ([148.87.113.123]:59200 "EHLO rgminet11.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753355AbZKLRlH (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:41:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091112195101.63263490.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell , lenb@kernel.org Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:51:01 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20091111: > > The cpufreq tree gained a conflict against the acpi tree. when CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n: arch/x86/kernel/acpi/processor.o: In function `acpi_processor_get_bios_limit': (.text+0x0): multiple definition of `acpi_processor_get_bios_limit' arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.o:(.text+0x0): first defined here The function definition in include/apci/procssor.h needs to be "static inline" at line 323. --- ~Randy