Re: [PULL] cpumask tree

[Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday 03 January 2009 07:08:40 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>  - architectures that have no __fls (8 out of 21) fail to build:
>>>
>>>      arch/cris
>>>      arch/frv
>>>      arch/h8300
>>>      arch/m32r
>>>      arch/m68k
>>>      arch/mn10300
>>>      arch/xtensa
>> Fixes pushed, m68k should be OK tho; is this actual compile test?  You have
>> to look in include/asm-m68k to see __fls.
> 
> yeah, i stopped the tests after the first two build failures - the rest is 
> a grep result from arch/*/, that's why include/asm-m68k/ was left out.
> 
>>> Rusty, would it be fine with you if we did all the remaining bits via 
>>> tip/cpus4096? It's your tree and your bits and we wanted to send our 
>>> remaining bits after your tree went to Linus but the conflict 
>>> resolutions from Mike are valuable so i think we should reconsider the 
>>> ordering.
>> Yeah, no reason for us to do the merge twice.  As long as it ends 
>> upstream, I'm a happy camper.
> 
> great - lets do it that way then. I have pulled your fixes into the 
> cpus4096 tree:
> 
>  5ece5c5: xtensa: define __fls
>  5c134da: mn10300: define __fls
>  16a2062: m32r: define __fls
>  9ddabc2: h8300: define __fls
>  ee38e51: frv: define __fls
>  0999769: cris: define __fls
> 
> Once we have figured out the CPU-hotplug lockdep splat (possibly due to 
> Mike's changes not yours) i'll send it to Linus. Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo

Thanks!  Am working on that now.

Mike