From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Travis Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr_cpumask tree Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:02:25 -0800 Message-ID: <49474471.2090409@sgi.com> References: <20081215170945.b91f3b9c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <200812151711.36134.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <4946855D.7070403@sgi.com> <200812161610.58496.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.179.30]:33119 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752439AbYLPGC3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:02:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200812161610.58496.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Rusty Russell Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu , Ingo Molnar Rusty Russell wrote: > On Tuesday 16 December 2008 02:57:09 Mike Travis wrote: >> Rusty Russell wrote: >>> On Monday 15 December 2008 16:39:45 Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>> Hi Rusty, >>>> >>>> Today's linux-next merge of the rr_cpumask tree got a conflict in >>>> arch/x86/kernel/io_apic.c between commit >>>> 3145e941fcfe2548fa2270afb1a05bab3a6bc418 ("x86, MSI: pass irq_cfg and >>>> irq_desc") from the sparseirq tree and commit >>>> 0de26520c7cabf36e1de090ea8092f011a6106ce ("cpumask: make irq_set_affinity >>>> () take a const struct cpumask") from the rr_cpumask tree. >>>> >>>> There are lots of overlapping changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the >>>> fix as necessary. >>> I have performed this merge before. The results are in >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rusty/linux-2.6-for-ingo.git >>> >>> Ingo, can you pull these into cpus4096? It's just the cpumask/cpus4096 merge. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rusty. >> Hi Rusty, >> >> Did you update your tip/cpus4096 branch? > > No. As I said, I just did a merge of ingo's 4096 tree with the cpumask tree. > He should pull that, and then the rest of the x86 patches can go on top. > > Cheers, > Rusty. Hi Rusty, Yes, I did finally figure that out. Thanks for rebasing the part that Ingo needed so maybe the rest can be pushed. There was a problem when the 'for-ingo' tree was merged as there were mixed up API calls in io_apic.c, but I fixed them in the first x86 only patch. I wasn't sure of what else to do. All the x86 patches build and boot (and test! ;-) on x86_64. My 32-bit box has gone into a coma until I can figure out what's up (and the 64-bit box lost it's 32-bit root partition.) Since they are pretty much exactly as you had tested last week, I not expecting any problems. I'm working through the remainder of your cpumask patches now. Thanks! Mike