From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932256Ab2AEA6F (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:58:05 -0500
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:58577 "EHLO
	relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757321Ab2AEA6C convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:58:02 -0500
X-Originating-IP: 217.70.178.132
X-Originating-IP: 50.43.15.19
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:57:52 -0800
From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
        linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree
Message-ID: <20120105005751.GA1761@leaf>
References: <20111228174518.721624fad9d048f9f85b3d50@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20120104230720.GD24583@kroah.com>
 <20120105104835.fd6c0fd173622af59d11012f@canb.auug.org.au>
 <CAPXgP13TC4iuy=MW-p8x05VG8ad-9rC+jxm6qHtx90tBX9zhTw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPXgP13TC4iuy=MW-p8x05VG8ad-9rC+jxm6qHtx90tBX9zhTw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 01:01:51AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 00:48, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > Kay, Greg, any hints would be nice.  The tip tree commit is adding this:
> >
> > bool cpu_is_hotpluggable(unsigned cpu)
> > {
> >        struct sys_device *dev = get_cpu_sysdev(cpu);
> >        return dev && container_of(dev, struct cpu, sysdev)->hotpluggable;
> > }
> >
> > and, of course, all the sys_device stuff has now gone ...
> >
> > So is this correct?
> >
> > bool cpu_is_hotpluggable(unsigned cpu)
> > {
> >        struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
> >        return dev && container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev)->hotpluggable;
> > }
> 
> Yes, that look like the right pattern.
> 
> Stephen, thanks a lot for your help here, it's very much appreciated.

Definitely, thanks for fixing up cpu_is_hotpluggable for this change.

- Josh Triplett