From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932856AbXIGPui (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:50:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932448AbXIGPu3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:50:29 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-4-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:55535 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932531AbXIGPu3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:50:29 -0400 Message-ID: <46E171AF.8060502@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:43:43 -0700 From: Mike Travis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] core: fix build error when referencing arch specific structures References: <20070907040943.467530005@sgi.com> <200709070828.05730.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <200709070828.05730.ak@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: > On Friday 07 September 2007 05:09, travis@sgi.com wrote: >> Since the core kernel routines need to reference cpu_sibling_map, >> whether it be a static array or a per_cpu data variable, an access >> function has been defined. >> >> In addition, changes have been made to the ia64 and ppc64 arch's to >> move the cpu_sibling_map from a static cpumask_t array [NR_CPUS] to >> be per_cpu cpumask_t arrays. >> >> Note that I do not have the ability to build or test patch 3/3, the >> ppc64 changes. >> >> Patches are referenced against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 . > > It would be better if you could redo the patches with the original patches > reverted, not incremental changes. In the end we'll need a full patch set > with full changelog anyways, not a series of incremental fixes. Will do. Thanks. I take it I should run a diff against rc4 (w/o mm1) to regenerate a complete patch, including the prior ones? > > Also I guess some powerpc testers would be needed. Perhaps cc the > maintainers? I've been looking for where to Cc: those guys (as Andrew probably realizes from his extra "spam" from me. ;-) Thanks! Mike