Re: [PULL] cpumask tree

Mike Travis
2009-01-03T14:59:07Z

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