From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Travis Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:46:30 -0800 Message-ID: <49626396.7080309@sgi.com> References: <20090105143239.08b1a060.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <200901051727.11403.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.179.29]:40948 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753545AbZAETqe (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:46:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200901051727.11403.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Rusty Russell Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Christoph Lameter , Jack Steiner Rusty Russell wrote: > 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? I have not had a chance to look at the new patch. The one that I was working on had an issue with bootup on x86_64 with certain gcc versions and got dropped at the last moment. Missing merge windows for the NR_CPUS=4096 changes was far more critical to SGI. > > 1) Author is wrong. This is Christoph's, not Mike's. Yes, most of the core code was Christoph's. This was before I learned about the 'From:' line in the patch. I added some of the code to make it actually work. ;-) > 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. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html