From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the percpu tree Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:11:20 -0800 Message-ID: <20110106051120.GA21315@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20110104152105.5cc7c3a9.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20110104051314.GA6748@mtj.dyndns.org> <20110106151815.9e5c2a1e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:33111 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750735Ab1AFFLy (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 00:11:54 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110106151815.9e5c2a1e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Rusty Russell , Christoph Lameter , Ingo Molnar , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, again. On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 03:18:15PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > My apologies. I forgot an earlier patch to introduce this_cpu_has() > > macro. I've reverted the offending commit. > > But that revert is not in your published for-next branch yet. I have > manually reverted that commit for today. Ah, embarrassing. I updated for-2.6.38 but forgot to update for-next accordingly. Fixed. Thank you. -- tejun