From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [BUILD-FAILURE] linux-next: Tree for June 30 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:15:15 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20080701001656.e156585c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <48690385.7030500@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <48690D3C.1060803@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630185943.GA24692@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20080630192610.GA6584@elte.hu> <20080630194727.GA26682@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20080630200623.GE6584@elte.hu> <20080630202506.GA28050@uranus.ravnborg.org> <486943F1.80606@zytor.com> <48695449.5010602@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <48695449.5010602@zytor.com> (H. Peter Anvin's message of "Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:46:49 -0700") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Ingo Molnar , Kamalesh Babulal , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Jens Axboe , Andy Whitcroft , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Vivek Goyal List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > Here is a patch to replace the hard-coded limit with dynamic allocation. I have > only build-tested it, but it seems to work. > > Please try it out; barring any screams to the contrary I'll add it to -tip. Looks reasonable to me. When generalizing from a test program to something that can be used every day I think I just overlooked the fact that I had not dynamically allocated the section count. Eric