Re: [PULL] cpumask tree

Ingo Molnar
2009-01-03T10:52:34Z

* 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