Re: [VOYAGER] fix build broken by shift to smp_ops

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 15:54:18 -0500
> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 13:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:02:42 -0700
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Does "that" have name?  I can find no patch in -mm which appears to have
>>>>> anything to do with SMP consolidation, and this patch applies cleanly to
>>>>> the current -mm lineup.
>>>>>   
>>>>>           
>>>> Sorry, I thought you'd picked this up:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: i386: move common parts of smp into their own file
>>>>
>>>> Several parts of kernel/smp.c and smpboot.c are generally useful for
>>>> other subarchitectures and paravirt_ops implementations, so make them
>>>> available for reuse.
>>>>         
>>> Confused.  This patch conflicts a lot with James's one (which I named
>>> voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch).
>>>       
>>> If your "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" also fixes
>>> Voyager and is preferred then cool, but a) the changelog should tell us
>>> that and b) could James please test it?
>>>       
>> OK, let me try a brief history.  A while ago Eric pointed out that the
>> smp ops patch in -mm would break voyager.  So we worked on (and tested a
>> fix for it).  Part of the fix was the prerequisite patch "i386: move
>> common parts of smp into their own file".  The fix on top of this was
>> called "i386: fix voyager build" which actually fixed the voyager build.
>>
>> I've been nagging Andi for a couple of weeks now to get these two
>> upstream.  Finally he replied that the he wasn't planning on sending the
>> precursor "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file" upstream
>> for 2.6.22.  So I had to do a patch that would fix the voyager build
>> without this ... which is what you have.
>>     
>
> uh, I suspected it was something like that.
>
>   
>> So, you either need the single patch you have, or the other two entitled
>>
>> "i386: move common parts of smp into their own file".
>> "i386: fix voyager build" 
>>     
>
> OK, thanks.  I hereby propose that I send the below
> (voyager-fix-build-broken-by-shift-to-smp_ops.patch) to Linus later today,
> provided it passes local testing.
>
> All those in favour say aye?
>   

OK, but only if you don't want to put "i386: move common parts of smp
into their own file" in front of it, and remove the duplicated code.  I
could send you a third copy if you like.

    J