From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x242.google.com (mail-wm0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3vTLCM26d6zDq8M for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:01:51 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x242.google.com with SMTP id m70so491367wma.1 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:01:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 05:01:43 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Michael Ellerman Cc: LKML , Abdul Haleem , Oliver O'Halloran , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Remove leftover cputime_to_nsecs call causing build error Message-ID: <20170223040142.GA5323@lerouge> References: <1487690321-21553-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <87fuj5zz8o.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <87fuj5zz8o.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 08:34:15AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Frederic Weisbecker writes: > > > This type conversion is a leftover that got ignored during the kcpustat > > conversion to nanosecs, resulting in build breakage with config having > > CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y. > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c: In function 'running_clock': > > arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c:712:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'cputime_to_nsecs' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > return local_clock() - cputime_to_nsecs(kcpustat_this_cpu->cpustat[CPUTIME_STEAL]); > > > > All we need is to remove it. > > > > Reported-by: Abdul Haleem > > Cc: Michael Ellerman > > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt > > Cc: Paul Mackerras > > Cc: Oliver O'Halloran > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker > > LGTM. > > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman > > > Are you going to send this to Linus, or should I? I would prefer you send it to Linus if you don't mind. The fate of a powerpc patch sent by me directly to Linus is anything but predictable :o) Thanks.