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

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

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 ?

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk