From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: RE: linux-next: Tree for June 3 Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20100603134753.710a64b3.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <201006032222.57411.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D530114C3DC47@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D530114C3DE4D@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D530114C3DE4D@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Rusty Russell , Dave Young , Stephen Rothwell , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , LKML List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Luck, Tony wrote: > > It gets rid of the oops. So that's good. Something is still > hokey in linux-next land though because no modules get loaded. > So no ehci/uhci available :-( So maybe the error (the one that caused us to exit and caused the oops due to the wrong return value) is the one that now causes it to not load. I note that ia64 has a pretty big/complex module_frob_arch_sections(). Many architectures (like x86) has a trivial one ("return 0;"), and there might be some ordering differences in the setup that only matter with architectures that do odd things there.. Linus