Re: [PATCH 1/1] Kernel compile bug in 2.6.22.6/7 {maybe more} ARM/StrongARM

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:58:34 -0400 Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:52:29AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>  > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:36:51 -0400 Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
>  > > 
>  > > commit 184c44d2049c4db7ef6ec65794546954da2c6a0e
>  > > Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>  > > Date:   Wed May 2 19:27:08 2007 +0200
>  > > 
>  > >     [PATCH] x86-64: fix x86_64-mm-sched-clock-share
>  > >     
>  > >     Fix for the following patch. Provide dummy cpufreq functions when
>  > >     CPUFREQ is not compiled in.
>  > >     
>  > >     Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
>  > >     Cc: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
>  > >     Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>  > >     Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
>  > > 
>  > > I don't remember seeing any problem here, so I'm not entirely sure what
>  > > this was supposed to be fixing.  Perhaps the -mm-esque patch name
>  > > will provide Andrew/Andi clues. It lacks sufficient information for
>  > > my brain to guess what the problem was.
>  > 
>  > Oh geeze.  sched-clock-share went through about 18 different versions, was
>  > merged, unmerged, remerged, dropped, etc.  I don't recall at what stage in
>  > this mess the above fix was inserted, sorry.
>  > 
>  > > "Fix for the following patch" is also something that really should
>  > > never be added to a git changelog too, because 'next' means absolutely
>  > > nothing to me, nor I expect 99% of changelog readers.
>  > 
>  > 184c44d2049c4db7ef6ec65794546954da2c6a0e should never have existed,
>  > actually.  I intended that Andi fold it into the base patch prior to
>  > sending it to Linus.  He normally does that, but it looks like this
>  > one was handled as a standalone commit for some reason.
> 
> So lets see what happens if we revert it ?
> 

<grep flurry>

OK, here: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc5/2.6.21-rc5-mm3/broken-out/fix-x86_64-mm-sched-clock-share.patch

So I guess what we want to do here is to revert that patch, test i386
allnoconfig and then fix up anything which breaks.